Rhonda Kirkland
Oshawa, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“I find the Liberal government's response, both in committee and in the House, to be very arrogant and dismissive of the process that we have in the House for a reason.”
“Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We support giving police the tools they need to pursue terrorists, child predators, organized crime networks and cybercriminals. With proper judicial authorization, law enforcement should be able to obtain lawful access to necessary and relevant evidence when investigating serious crimes.”
“13, to cut off debate and ram the bill through committee and through Parliament, moved by the Liberal public safety minister and the Liberal government, is an admission that the bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate and scrutiny. I think the Liberals are afraid to answer the questions.”
“Our amendment to the motion even is reasonable: to split the bill, pass what we can agree on and do this right. Canadians expect us to do our homework, to read the fine print and to identify problems before legislation becomes law, not after. Most of all, Canadians expect Parliament to function as more than a government approval machine.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the work ethic of my friend and colleague who sits with me on the public safety committee and the amount that she has studied this bill. We studied it in depth, and I appreciate her being thankful for all the staff who have done this work with us as well.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole . I have been a member for just over a year, 12 or 14 months, and I think I am more disappointed this week than I have been in my entire time in the House.”
The complete record
Every one of 436 lines we hold for Rhonda Kirkland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“The government ripped out mandatory prison sentences for the worst gun offenders, the ones who use weapons to threaten, to maim or to kill. They sided with criminals over victims again. The Liberal government has put politics ahead of public safety. The Liberals also opened the door to house arrest for criminals convicted of crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, arson and motor vehicle theft. Yes, under the Liberal government, someone convicted of a sexual assault can serve their sentence at home, perhaps even next door to their victim. The consequences are clear: Violent crime has surged 50%, women and children are more at risk than ever, police officers are stretched beyond capacity and repeat offenders are emboldened because they know there are no real consequences.”
“This law repealed mandatory prison sentences for a long list of serious offences: using firearms in commission of an offence, possessing a prohibited weapon with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting guns illegally, robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and even discharging a firearm with intent. The Liberals reduced mandatory prison sentences for these. The Liberals claim to care about gun crime, but their actions expose the truth. Instead of going after violent criminals, they come after people like me, a proud RPAL holder, and other law-abiding firearm owners who follow every rule and every regulation. Meanwhile, the thugs pulling the triggers on our streets are being handed free passes.”
“How did we get here? We got here because of deliberate choices made by the Liberal government. We all know that in 2019, the Liberals passed Bill C-75 , which introduced what they call the “principle of restraint” for bail, requiring judges to give primary consideration to releasing offenders at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. In other words, regardless of their criminal record and regardless of their history, the starting point is to let someone out and to let them out quickly. In 2022, the government doubled down and passed Bill C-5 .”
“She reports a rise in intimate partner violence and femicides, an increase in the brutality and the severity of attacks, and more cases involving younger individuals, including teens in dating relationships. (1615) She also warns that our justice system is failing survivors, that femicide is ignored in the Criminal Code, that survivors are left in the dark about offender release and that bail notifications, when they do happen, are not always trauma-informed; in fact they rarely are, which leaves women and families in even greater danger. These are not just statistics; they are my neighbours. They are families in Oshawa. They are real people falling through the cracks of a broken system, a system that has been broken by the Liberal government, which claims we now can trust it to fix it someday, maybe, when it gets around to it.”
“In 2024, her team provided direct support for nearly 3,000 victims of intimate partner violence in Durham region, a 33% increase from the year prior. This year, they are already on track to reach 3,700 cases, another 26% increase. Due to how cases are recorded, the true number of incidents last year would have been closer to 4,029, 80% of those survivors are women and girls. Still, femicide is not even recognized as a distinct crime in our criminal code. The Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability reminds us that two out of every three women in Canada will experience violence in their lifetime, and that a woman is killed every 48 hours in this country, usually by a man close to her. Krista told me that the violence is getting worse, not better.”
“Cait Alexander, the founder of End Violence Everywhere, put it powerfully when she said that Canada has become a graveyard of preventable deaths, with innocent women and children paying the price while begging for reform, begging for safety. She said that we point fingers at the U.S. while our own citizens bleed or are forced to leave simply to stay alive. Cait has even asked the Minister of Justice to call her personally and tell her to her face that Canada is not the Wild West. The crisis is not just out there somewhere in Canada, it is here. It is in my community, in Oshawa and in the Durham region. Krista MacNeil, the executive director of Victim Services of Durham Region, recently shared devastating numbers with me.”
“The statistics confirm what Canadians already know. Since 2015, female victimization by intimate partner violence has risen nearly 19%. Since 2019, when the Liberals passed Bill C-75 , the number of female victims of intimate partner violence has risen by another 13.5%. That means there are tens of thousands more women who have suffered abuse, even as the government claims its legislation was supposed to protect them. Advocates are sounding the alarm as well. Last week, I met Cait Alexander, who was left to die by her ex-partner. He was out on $500 bail, by the way. Out he went, but he then left someone for dead.”
“Sexual assaults, one of the most devastating crimes for victims, are up 75%, and we know that 90% of those victims are women. Violent firearms offences, the crimes involving the use, pointing or discharge of a gun, are up 116%, and they have increased nine years in a row. Extortion is up a whopping 357%, and theft has surged by almost 46%. Trafficking in persons is up by more than 83% and sexual violations against children, perhaps the most heartbreaking statistic of all, have more than doubled, up 119%. Even crimes like kidnapping, harassment and forcible confinement are up. This does not sound like exaggeration. Canadians are seeing the evidence with their own eyes, and it is no wonder they feel unsafe. Behind every single one of these numbers is a victim, a family and often an entire community that has been shattered.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for King—Vaughan . It is a privilege to rise, as always, on behalf of the resilient residents of Oshawa. I am not exaggerating, despite what the members across the way think, when I say that residents in my community are scared. They are worried about walking down their own streets, sending their children to school or living in their own homes. They tell me every day that they feel less safe in our community than they did just a few years ago. Unfortunately, the data backs them up. Since this fourth-term Liberal government was elected to office in 2015, violent crime has skyrocketed in this country. Total violent crime is up nearly 50%. Homicides are up 28%, and gang-related homicides alone are up a staggering 78%.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member touches on something that is very close to my heart as well, and that is bail reform. We keep hearing members opposite saying that it is coming and it is pending. It has been six and a half years since they presented bail reform in Bill C-75 , and my colleague mentioned it rewrote the rules so that judges are instructed to let offenders out at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions. This was a deliberate Liberal policy. It was not an accident. They deliberately wrote that in the bill, and for six and a half years, people have died and women have been raped and abused. This has happened over and over again in six and a half years. The Liberals are accountable for it. What does the member have to say about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate a little more on his comments regarding simply removing the irritants the United States has asked us to remove. It does not feel like leadership. The public safety minister pretty much admitted that this was the purpose of the bill. What took the Liberals so long? Why did they wait for the U.S. to chime in? I think our government is stronger than that, or it should be, and I would like to hear a couple of more comments on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could indicate something to this side of the House. We spoke to many police associations over the summer, and they indicated that the number one issue they are facing in terms of crime and safety with the current reformed bail we have is that it needs to be reformed so that repeat offenders are kept behind bars. Can the member indicate why none of this was added to this particular bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have a serious situation. The Liberals have welcomed unsustainable levels of international students to Canada every year but did not think about where they would live. Things are so bad that this year a CBC investigation uncovered extreme abuse by landlords, who were in some cases offering free or discounted rent in exchange for sexual services. This is not fair to anyone. The Liberals broke the immigration system. When will the abuse end?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this heartfelt, compassionate, thoughtful speech. I am proud to be part of a caucus that cares that our loved ones come home. We talk about borders. A member who spoke previously talked about living in a border town. All day I have heard members on the opposite side telling us how proud they are that this is the most money ever promised to be spent on border security. They are so proud of that. However, I have to ask, and I think the member can comfortably comment, why are we in the place we are right now, where we have to spend that kind of money now to try to fix the problem?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety seems to admit that there is a serious fentanyl crisis. However, in his own department's 2025-26 plan, the word fentanyl does not even appear once. I am sure he has had conversations with the minister on this. Can he explain why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member from Cambridge is a strong female member of Parliament, and I am excited to be serving with her. I would like to talk a little bit about intimate partner violence. The member mentioned the effect that limiting cash under $10,000 would have on seniors. I wonder whether she could comment on what that could mean for women trying to escape abuse.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of our police services and our police associations, and I support all of the things that they need. I can say that what they are talking about most is bail reform. That is their biggest concern today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do think the majority of Canadians struggle with trusting the current government with their life. From those to whom much is given, much shall be required. History has shown that the Liberal government will always take advantage of its powers and will take away the rights of law-abiding Canadians, and this is something that concerns us all greatly on this side of the House. It seems some of the NDP members have expressed some of the same concerns, and I am happy to hear that. I hope we will, on that point, stand together.”
“Mr. Speaker, a day does not go by in our communities when we are not faced with sad stories and difficult situations, and I agree that things need to change. The bill in particular is an attack on women who cannot escape homes without access to and sometimes hiding away large amounts of cash in order to escape. I will add here that it is a good time to mention the wonderful community organizations in Oshawa that support women and folks with intimate partner violence and who shelter them, including The Denise House. I thank them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think most Conservative members of the House have said that there are elements of the bill that are good and that are strong; however, there are so many elements that are concerning that we have to look a lot closer. There are so many things, like bail reform and sentencing provisions, that are simply not addressed. I do not know if that is something that can be changed by amendments in committee, but we will have to see.”
“Imagine if instead of chasing headlines abroad he had repealed Bill C-75 months ago. How many break-ins, assaults or violent crimes could have been avoided? Conservatives have offered practical solutions for many years. The Minister of Public Safety has already admitted the true purpose of the bill: removing irritants for the United States. Canadian security, for the minister, has become secondary. With Bill C-2 , the government risks surrendering Canadians' privacy, financial freedoms and safety, all for political convenience. This is not leadership; this is appeasement. Conservatives do not oppose all of Bill C-2 . Some measures deserve to be studied and improved. However, we will not give the government a blank cheque to erode the freedoms of Canadians. Individuals should never be asked to choose between safety and liberty.”
“The Liberals' Bill C-75 rewrote the rule so that judges are instructed to let offenders out at the first chance and under the weakest conditions possible. That was not an accident; it was a deliberate policy. The results are plain to see in Vancouver. We know, and it has been said today, the same 40 habitual offenders have been cycled through our system over 6,000 times. That is about 150 arrests each in a single year, which is a shocking figure that tells the story of a system that has collapsed. Arrest, release and repeat is the reality across Canada. Conservatives have been warning for years that this is a revolving door that endangers our neighbourhoods. What has the Prime Minister done? Instead of fixing the law, he closed Parliament, spent his summer globe-trotting and left Canadians to deal with the consequences.”
“When Liberals are given too much power, we can be certain they will abuse it. Bill C-2 is over 100 pages long and would amend 14 acts, yet it omits reforms Canadians have been crying out for. Bail reform is absent. Catch and release would remain in place. There would be no mandatory prison terms for fentanyl traffickers or violent gangsters. Families in Oshawa are now afraid to let their kids walk downtown. Shopkeepers are exhausted from repeat thefts. Police officers see the same criminals return to the streets. Canadians do not want gestures; it is time for action. Canadians wonder how our streets reached this point. Some claim we need bail reform, but in fact we already have it, and it is making things worse.”
“Encryption ensures that people have safe lines of communication online when they need them most. For survivors of intimate partner violence, encryption is a lifeline that secures confidential communication about escape plans and protects victims, including children, from abusers. Many families in Oshawa include newcomers who fled regimes that spied on their citizens, and they came to Canada for freedom. They should not see those same shadows falling over their lives here. Canadians remember 2022, when the government froze bank accounts of individuals it disagreed with politically. Under Bill C-2 , banks could collect and use personal information without consent, and accounts could be frozen on suspicion alone. Ordinary Canadians should never face this risk. We learn from experience.”
“Allowing the government to rifle through letters and packages is a dangerous intrusion into everyday life. It is exactly the kind of invasion of privacy I came to expect as normal when I lived in Communist China as a young teacher. (1220) Part 15 goes further; it would compel companies to build back doors into their systems. Once built, those back doors could be accessed without judicial oversight. In a bid to win trade concessions from the U.S., the Prime Minister has put our rights and values on the bargaining table. Bill C-2 's lawful access provisions would erode a last line of defence to ensure that people can have safe experiences online and off-line. International human rights bodies have recognized the importance of encryption to protecting the safety and privacy of people.”
“Without control over their money, it becomes much easier for an abuser to maintain power and control, trapping the person in a cycle of dependence and making it harder to safely escape. Taking away cash as a safe option leaves some of the most vulnerable Canadians with fewer tools to protect themselves. Perhaps the most concerning factors of Bill C-2 are the sections that would undermine civil liberties. The Supreme Court has affirmed that Canadians have a right to privacy in their Internet records. Bill C-2 seeks to undo that, allowing officials to obtain subscriber information without a warrant in so-called urgent circumstances. Shockingly, the bill would even give Canada Post new powers to open and inspect personal mail. Canadians should be confident that what they send through the mail will remain private and confidential.”
“Cracking down on money laundering is essential of course. Oshawa families work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules. Criminal gangs should not be able to wash their profits through loopholes, yet part 11 of Bill C-2 takes a wrong turn. It would impose a blanket ban on cash transactions over $10,000. While gangsters have used cash to launder money, this sweeping ban would punish law-abiding citizens, such as seniors who rely on cash, tradespeople and small businesses, without evidence that it would stop organized crime at all. What I find even more troubling is that access to cash can be crucial for women and individuals trying to escape abusive relationships, because financial independence can be a lifeline. I cannot tell members how many times I have encountered victims of intimate partner violence who feel stuck and trapped.”
“Families in Oshawa do not believe that a fentanyl dealer should be sitting on the couch; they believe the dealer should be behind bars. These dealers are not small-time offenders; they are people whose actions have ended lives, destroyed families and terrorized our communities. For 10 years, the Liberal government has failed to secure Canada's borders. Our officers do their best with the tools they have, but the tools are not enough. Illegal drugs, stolen vehicles and firearms flow in while Canadians pay the price. Throughout that time, Conservatives have consistently called for stronger border security, more CBSA agents, high-powered scanners at land crossings and ports, and systems to track departures of deportees. These are practical steps that would stop threats before they hit our streets.”
“It mixes a few measures worth supporting with many that leave Canadians feeling less free, less safe and less confident in their government. The fentanyl crisis has devastated many Canadian communities, including my own in Oshawa and our downtown core. Too many lives have been cut short. Too many parents have stood in sorrow at vigils for their sons and their daughters. First responders race from call to call, fighting to save lives from overdose after overdose, reflecting the depth of a crisis, including the human cost, that continues to grip our city. Liberals create a crisis and somehow expect Canadians to trust that they are the ones to fix it. It is not enough to ban chemicals; traffickers must face justice, yet the bill would allow many dealers to serve sentences from home.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the hard-working residents of Oshawa. When I return from my city to the chamber, I always carry the voices of our workers in Oshawa who build our economy, of families who keep our neighbourhood strong and of young people who deserve the chance to build a future in the city they call home. They are the strength of Oshawa, and they deserve a government as strong as they are and as hard-working as they are. Every family in Oshawa deserves and wants the same thing: safe streets where children can walk without fear, secure borders that stop drugs and guns from entering our neighbourhoods, and a government that protects their rights while holding criminals accountable. Bill C-2 claims to deliver these things, but a closer look shows it offers more rhetoric than results.”
“Mr. Speaker, there are so many elements of this speech by the member opposite that I could address, including why Canadians should trust the same old Liberal government to fix the crisis when it created the crisis. The member even referenced that it was the same government in part of her speech. However, the part that I am most interested in is what she said about Canada Post opening mail. She said that law enforcement can go to a judge and get a warrant. I wonder if the member opposite could read the portion of the bill that describes clearly that the judge and the warrant would be required.”
“Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Prime Minister that on the day he swore in his cabinet, he said that Canadians would judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Well, the judgment is here and the verdict is failure. Food inflation is now 70% above target. Another Liberal broken promise, another Liberal bait and switch, because the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. Six months later, why are Canadians still being forced to choose between rent and groceries?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on her win in my region, the Durham region, and I echo her kudos and the good things she had to say about Durham Regional Police Service officers, who work hard in our community and always have our back. I would say that I feel like what is missing in the bill are the items needed to have the officers' back. They have our back every day. With respect to the bail reforms and the things that are necessary that are missing from the bill, does the member have a comment on those so we can make sure people are not out on bail before the police are done writing their reports?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, it does send a chill of fear through constituents in my riding. In Oshawa, it was announced that we are losing a third line, that third shift. Jobs are already being lost because of sales going down. It is really a matter of choice. It comes back to choice all the time. As I said before, targets are fine. We all want a cleaner environment and lower emissions. We want to reach goals and targets. Mandates are unacceptable.”
“Madam Speaker, I spoke with many auto manufacturers and groups yesterday, and the answer is this: The member said it; the word is “targets”. Targets are just fine. Auto manufacturers and the auto sector are fine with targets. Targets are something they can strive for. A mandate that controls what Canadians buy is unacceptable.”
“They will still get chauffeured around in motorcades with idling engines, and they will still fly their private jets to climate conferences overseas. Working Canadians will be left holding the bag.”
“We do not support telling working-class Canadians that they must spend $15,000 to $20,000 more for a vehicle that does not fit their life or their region just to satisfy a mandate drawn up by this out-of-touch Liberal government. That is what Conservatives stand for. It is what we will always stand for. The auto sector in Oshawa and across Ontario has a delicate balance. Our workers have proven time and time again that they can compete with the best in the world, but they need stable, realistic policies, not sweeping bans that ignore infrastructure, regional needs and consumer realities. Let us be honest: This ban is not going to hurt the Prime Minister , his Bay Street donors or many of the elites across the aisle. They will still drive what they want.”
“If our auto regulations are not aligned with those of the United States, for instance, it will threaten Canada's industrial future, and we risk losing our auto industry, which is why we must let the market and the industry dictate, not the Liberal government. Conservatives reject this approach. We believe in common sense. We believe in trusting Canadians, not punishing them. Canadians deserve freedom to choose what they say, what they think, where their money goes and, yes, what they drive, whether it be gas-powered, electrical or both. We support cleaner technology. We support lower emissions. We support a strong, competitive Canadian auto sector.”
“We will just get it this way from Canadians.” The Liberal government will impose this $20,000 per vehicle tax at the expense of Canadians. Essentially, the result of the legislation would be lower vehicle sales, higher vehicle prices for Canadians and fewer jobs in the sector. It will undermine consumer affordability and choice, specifically at a time of rising costs, limited demand and growing uncertainty about infrastructure readiness. The auto industry is already under stress because of the U.S. tariffs. I know all members of the House will agree that now more than ever, we must collectively protect this vital sector. Causing further avoidable harm would be irresponsible, jeopardizing Canadian jobs, investment, affordable access and choice for essential transportation needs and the stability of our economy.”
“(1350) As reported by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, EV sales have collapsed in recent months, falling to just 7.5% in April 2025. There is no longer a pathway to achieving the government's mandated sales level of 20% by 2026. The auto manufacturers cannot meet these quotas. In fact, in Quebec, sales decreased by 75% in the first quarter of 2025. That is a 75% decrease in EV sales. If auto manufacturers cannot meet these quotas, then there will be penalties. We know this. It was said before. Let us say a company is supposed to sell 10,000 vehicles in 2026, 2,000 of them must be EVs and they only end up selling 1,000. That is a cost of $20 million to the manufacturer, so the government does not have to worry about the consumer carbon tax anymore. They probably looked at this policy and thought, “This is a new carbon tax.”
“A skilled tradesperson in Oshawa hauling their gear in the dead of winter is not thinking about EV market share; they are thinking about whether their truck is going to start in -20°C or maybe whether they can afford the payments. These are the people the Liberal elite never think about, ever. Canadians are not anti-EV. We are already leading the way in clean tech and in sustainable manufacturing. Since 2020, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis have announced nearly $1.5 billion of new job-creating investments in Canada, strengthening the automotive sector and its supply chains. These investments are driving growth across communities in parts manufacturing, logistics and technology development, reinforcing Canada's role in the global automotive industry.”
“In December 2022, the Canada Gazette, found on the Government of Canada website, in the regulatory impact analysis statement of the ban said this: “The proposed Amendments are expected to have a disproportionate impact on low-income households due to the higher upfront cost of ZEVs in early years and the potential for non-ZEV costs to increase due to a decreasing supply of these vehicles in response to the increasing ZEV sales targets.” It goes on to say, “The proposed Amendments would also disproportionately impact households living in rural and northern communities that may have lower access to public charging infrastructure”, and there is more to be said regarding that as well.”
“The workers of General Motors in Oshawa who fought hard to keep the auto industry alive in this country deserve better than to be dictated to by politicians in Ottawa who have never punched a clock, perhaps, or maybe never even had to pay off a car loan. The Liberal government's top-down ban on gas-powered vehicles is not only unaffordable; it is also disconnected from reality. It threatens jobs, limits choice and raises prices on the very people who are already being squeezed by inflation, high taxes and rising debt.”
“He is calling for the entire program to be scrapped, not tweaked and not delayed but scrapped, because the unrealistic mandates would force automakers to restrict the sale of gas-powered vehicles just to comply, leading to job losses in dealerships and in manufacturing companies, to lost revenue for manufacturers and to higher prices for consumers. This typical Liberal one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect reality in my community and in many, many communities around this country. When do the 2026 cars start rolling out? We used to say that we would expect them to roll out in the fall for the following year, but now the industry leaders are telling us that is not the case. They are starting to roll out right now, so this is a very important and timely debate.”
“We do not just buy them; we design them, we engineer them and we build them while also utilizing the CTC McLaughlin Advanced Technology Track, which supports building and combining software and hardware for advanced vehicle systems, helping make Oshawa and Durham Region leaders in automotive technology in Ontario. We have rolled up our sleeves through good times and bad. We have weathered plant closures and celebrated reopenings. Therefore, when the government tries to tell Canadians what kind of car they must drive, without listening to workers, to industry leaders or to the families who depend on affordable transportation, that is not leadership; it is simple overreach. Even the president of General Motors Canada has said that no major automaker is even close to hitting the 2026 targets.”
“Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today again to speak to our Conservative motion as the member of Parliament for Oshawa. We know that the motion is to end the ban on gas-powered vehicles, not to stop the production of electric vehicles in any way. My city has been the heartbeat of Canada's automotive industry for over a century now. For generations, Oshawa has helped drive this country forward, literally and figuratively. From the early days of McLaughlin Motor Car Co. to becoming the national headquarters for General Motors Canada, my community has been building the vehicles that Canadians rely on every single day. The people of Oshawa know cars.”
“Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us look at some actual facts. StatsCan reports that for every dollar of disposable income, Canadians now owe $1.74; this is the worst debt ratio in the G7. Oshawa's unemployment is at 9.1%, and TD Bank warns of a looming recession, with 100,000 jobs at risk. The government's response is to blow through $500 billion with no budget, no plan and no accountability. Will the Liberals finally table a budget, or will their silence continue to speak louder than their commitment to Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the member for Yellowhead on his election win. A member opposite mentioned something about permanently cutting the carbon tax, but of course not the industrial carbon tax. It is certainly just the consumer carbon tax. The member opposite did not answer, so maybe the member can. Do we think the industrial carbon tax is going to be passed down to consumers, or are the big emitters just going to pay for it themselves?”
“Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the member opposite's talking about affordability. We all heard this from our constituents as we walked the campaign trail. My question is an honest one. He mentioned that the large emitters should still be paying an industrial carbon tax. I am wondering whether he can tell me what he thinks. Does he believe that the large emitters will pay that carbon tax, or does he think the carbon tax will be passed down to consumers?”
“Madam Speaker, the member said that he felt the carbon tax did what it needed to do for the time that we had it. Can he tell me exactly how much the emissions were lowered as a result of the carbon tax? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”