Carol Anstey

Something else that we hear—and it's in relation to the same kind of spin that we heard on the consumer carbon tax—is that these revenues are being recycled back into the economy. In your opinion, do you think there's enough transparency around that?

Do you think in your opinion, working in this sector, that the policy is proportionate to the environmental benefits that would be achieved through the government's plan?

Thank you. If the current approach to the industrial carbon tax doesn't change, what do you see as the long-term outcome and implications for Canadians?

Thank you. That leads into my next question with respect to investment and the implication on investment in Canada, which means Canadian jobs and growth in the natural resources sector. Ultimately, what does this mean for investment as we're trying to attract it? Could you expand quickly on that?

Thank you so much. I'd now like to direct my questions to Margareta. With respect to the natural resources sector, one of the things that comes up a lot with respect to this policy is carbon leakage. I'm wondering if you could speak to that, please.

Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. Thank you for your testimony. I'd like to start with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Mr. Terrazzano, you've brought forward an opinion that we get push-back on a lot of the time, and it's with respect to the industrial carbon price and its impact on food prices. I just want to give you an opportunity to speak to that, if you could, because this is [more]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite's speech. I picked up on something he said about the many hours of consultation around the legislation. I am wondering if he could be very specific about the witnesses who were called in relation to the contentious amendment that we are discussing here today.

Mr. Speaker, several religious faith-based organizations have spoken out about this piece of legislation. Inciting violence is already illegal, and faith teachings are spoken in love, not hatred. His question is precisely the reason the legislation needs to be walked back. It is because it can be taken out of context and people of faith understand that when pastors and teachers are speaking about [more]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are pushing against the legislation. It is because there is a respect for this perspective about separation of church and state, and in this case, the government would be infringing on religious freedoms, which is actually our attempt to protect the church. The government is coming over into our lane and religious organizations are pushing back as a result, so [more]

C-9 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Billand, more particularly, to the deeply concerning and controversial Liberal-Bloc amendment that would remove the long-standing good-faith religious defence. This amendment would restrict freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Canada. My opposition to this legislation is not rooted in just my interpretation of this legislation; [more]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of comments. I was following the legislation very closely, and there are just a couple of things. When the amendment was passed, they did not consult with any faith groups or faith organizations. They did not call one witness. In addition, I will add that, if the member was listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that there are already laws in place. [more]