44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- May/17/22 10:12:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who are very concerned about the climate emergency and motivated by a book written by Seth Klein called A Good War.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that will reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; expand the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit countrywide; create good green jobs; and drive inclusive workforce development.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:15:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to present petition 11771830. The petition was initiated by Force of Nature, which is a non-profit in my riding and throughout the Lower Mainland of B.C. It is a strong advocate for all orders of government to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a more sustainable future.
The petitioners are calling on the government to do the following, among some other things: significantly reduce emissions with transparent accounting each year; make contributions to emissions reductions in the global south; wind down the use of fossil fuel subsidies and transition to a decarbonized economy; create good green jobs and drive inclusive workforce development; protect and strengthen human rights, workers' rights and the inherent rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples; expand the social safety net; decarbonize public housing; and provide accessible public transit.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:17:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we all know, it has been some time since we have been able to present petitions in this place, as Routine Proceedings became anything but routine.
However, I am pleased to stand today and present a petition on behalf of many constituents calling on the Government of Canada to recognize that this House voted in June 2019 that we were in a climate emergency, and we need to act like it. The petitioners call for reductions of emissions in Canada by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; the need to accept that we are going to wind down the fossil fuel industry and its related infrastructure, as we did with asbestos; and the need to create protections for workers' rights to assist all of those dependent on the industry in a shift, over time, to a decarbonized economy. The petitioners have many bullet points in this petition, including a call for an increase in taxes on the very wealthiest to ensure we have the funds to assist the workers in the transition away from fossil fuels.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:58:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.
Climate change and the environment are very important to me and my community. It guides the work that I do in this place, and that is because the threat is not theoretical. It is real. It is happening right now. Right across our country last summer we saw floods and wildfires. These events destroyed people's homes and their livelihoods. We need to take strong action as we face this reality.
Today, I will focus on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which we have committed to do by 2023, but I would like to begin by talking about the heavy lifting that we must do and that we are doing right now to fight climate change.
One of the most impactful and earliest steps we took was to put a price on carbon pollution. It encourages businesses and individuals to make choices that result in fewer emissions.
It is a strong market mechanism, and all of the funds that are collected through the price on carbon pollution are returned to the province where it is collected. None of it stays with the federal government. I want to be clear about that because sometimes I feel like that is lost in our conversations. It is described sometimes as a tax, but that was clearly put to bed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not, and none of the funds stay here with the federal government. It is all returned to individuals and the provinces from where they were taken.
I will give some good news. We have finally begun to flatten the curve on emissions. The first year when we saw the curve beginning to flatten was 2019. There was a decoupling. The economy grew, but emissions did not grow at the same pace, and in 2020, our emissions dropped. Much of that was due to the pandemic and the fact that we reduced travel. There is no doubt about that, but part of that drop was also due to the fact that we have cleaned up our electrical grid
As part of that, we are well on our way to removing coal-fired electricity from our electrical grid, which would reduce air pollution and emissions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, such as planting two billion trees and working to protect our lands and waters. We have put into law that we must achieve net zero in our country by 2050. We released the emissions reduction plan under the law for net zero by 2050, which sets projections for all sectors of our economy to reduce emissions and includes mechanisms to reduce combustion of fossil fuels, such as moving to 100% of all new vehicle sales being zero emissions by 2050.
Today's motion focuses on the narrower issue of fossil fuel subsidies and the work we are doing toward our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The commitment began in 2009, when Canada joined other members of the G20 in agreeing to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. The leaders' statement from that G20 said, “This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Previously, we had committed to meet the goal by 2025, and over the last year we have accelerated that timeline to be completed by 2023. So far, the government has rationalized or phased out the following nine tax measures that had provided preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector: the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, which was was announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, which was announced in budget 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for preproduction intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, which was announced in budget 2016; rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, which was announced in budget 2017 and completed in 2021; a phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, which was announced in 2017 and completed in 2019; and the phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, which was proposed in budget 2022 and will be completed in 2023.
As part of the process to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries have been pairing among themselves for a transparent review of their work. In 2018, Canada committed to undergoing a peer review process with Argentina. We are the fourth pair of countries within the G20 to undertake that process, and it is ongoing.
The previous six countries to do a peer review have generally considered fossil fuel subsidies based on the World Trade Organization's definition of “subsidy”, which is government spending, tax or non-tax, that provides a benefit. Further, countries have tailored that definition to subsidies aimed at the fossil fuel sector by focusing on those that directly or indirectly lead to increases in the production or consumption of fossil fuels.
To complete our own work to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 conducted an extensive review of non-tax measures. This was complemented by a consultation that ran from March to June 2019 on the government's draft framework to review measures outside the tax system. This feedback is taken into account in the work being done by Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
It is reasonable to expect that the question of what type of spending is aligned with a transition to net zero will change over time. In other words, government spending in support of the transition to a net-zero, reliable, affordable energy system could look different in 2023 from how it will look in the future. I will provide an example. Support for diesel use in northern and remote communities may need to continue in the short term to ensure the provision of essential energy services. However, in the longer term, as the government continues to invest in ways of moving these communities off diesel, these types of supports may no longer be considered aligned with government objectives once viable replacement options are put in place.
Before my time is up, I would like to address the motion's reference to carbon capture and storage. At a time when we need every tool at our disposal to reduce emissions, this is not the moment to remove support for carbon capture and storage. The IPCC has recognized that it plays a role in reducing emissions, as does the International Energy Agency. It is one part of what needs to be done to reduce our country's emissions and reach net zero.
Recently, at the environment committee, Professor Normand Mousseau shared the following testimony in response to a question from the member for Victoria.
He stated:
We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero.
We believe it is important to focus on how programs can support climate targets, international commitments, long-term prosperity and job creation in the face of a global energy transition. It is global. This is happening all around the world. Canada is on a journey to a net-zero future, one that will be anchored by a clean, affordable and reliable energy system. It is important to ensure that government spending and investment are well aligned with that journey. That is the work that we are doing and are committed to completing.
1414 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:07:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions.
My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:08:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the way we calculate our emissions around the world, by international agreement, is by looking at what is combusted within our own countries. We are in fact, through the emissions reductions plan, putting forward strong projections for all sectors.
When we focus on oil and gas, it is not just oil and gas. In a city like Toronto, buildings are one of the largest sources of emissions. We are putting forward projections for all sectors across our economy to reduce our combustion in a very active way. That is why, when I talk about things like zero-emission vehicles, those are all part of the plan, as are retrofits for buildings. We are doing the work that we need to do, and we are providing international support for countries that need to do that work at home as well.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:10:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with the first part of that. I hear this argument a lot, about Canada's footprint as a global player not being that large, so what does it matter what we are doing here? It matters a lot. That is what we need to do. We need to reduce our emissions, and that is what we are doing.
Let me get to the emissions piece. The emissions piece is what we are focusing on. That is what the atmosphere sees, emissions. It is not a matter of trying to focus on production. We have said very clearly that the oil and gas cap is about emissions. We have an emissions reductions plan that is geared to reducing those emissions, and we are taking the actions in investing and also supporting Canadian innovation to get to where we need to go to do that.
That is good for our economy, because that is the economy of the future. That is the economy the world is looking for, and we are going to be competitive in it.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:20:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member just concluded by stating that we need to use every tool in our tool box to fight climate change. The previous parliamentary secretary stated that Canada's emissions are counted by all of the fossil fuels burned here in Canada. I assume that includes our imported fossil fuels, as well.
Can the hon. member explain then why the price on pollution applies to Canadian-generated natural gas and oil, and not to imports? Is it because they come into eastern Canada versus western Canada? I wonder if he can help me understand why every tool in our tool box does not include a price on carbon on imported fuels.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:25:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the Bloc thinks this government is doing absolutely nothing. We have invested $100 billion in climate action. We flattened the curve. The hon. member from Timmins mentioned his view was that the emissions reduction plan was a scam. The World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver from the Green Party have all praised our plan. They are a little more objective than the member opposite.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:48:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to provide his thoughts on something Andrew Weaver said. We hear a lot about what the government's performance has been like. Andrew Weaver, the former leader of the Green Party in B.C., commented on the 2021 platform that the Liberals put forward to Canadians: “I am a climate scientist and a parent, and I have spent my life working on climate science policy and solutions. The science is clear. Urgent action is required to mitigate the worst aspects of the climate crisis and to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. The Liberal Party of Canada's climate plan is both bold and thoughtful. It is the only credible science-aligned climate plan put forward by any political party at the federal level to date.”
We, as a government, have invested historic highs. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into multiple billions of dollars, into a just green transition. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it was that the Government of Canada invested those billions of dollars for a green transition.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:09:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Beaches—East York.
I would like to thank our hon. colleague from Victoria for this opportunity to discuss Canada's climate plan. It is a plan that, as Canadians, we should be very proud of.
I will say at the outset that we as Liberals share the member's objective: a clean and just energy transition that does everything possible to shield our planet from the climate change threat. However, her motion's wording illustrates where we differ, and I will be speaking about that today.
As the member opposite knows, our government is committed to achieving a 40% to 45% emissions reduction by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also promised to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. This is our first area of disagreement, because we do not consider inefficient subsidies to be any of the measures we are using to cut emissions.
This brings me to our second difference of opinion. Unlike her party, the NDP, we support the development of carbon capture, use and storage technology. This technology involves the removal or capture of carbon from industrial processes or even directly from our atmosphere in order to make our planet livable.
However, first, I will put my comments in proper context, because carbon capture is just one tool among many in our climate plan's broad tool box to cut emissions across Canada's economy.
Our plan starts with putting a price on pollution. It also includes using regulatory investment and tax measures to incent the transition to cleaner options, like electric vehicles. The bottom line is that we are looking at all options, because despite wishful thinking in some quarters, there is no single, magical solution that will appear to resolve this existential challenge. Even clean energy sources such as wind and solar, while crucial, are not enough to get us to net zero. That is why we are encouraging all tools, including carbon capture technologies, which will be especially important for major pollution sources like the oil sands or chemical industries.
Carbon capture technologies have been developing through most of the century, but they remain expensive and are only used on a relatively small scale. I will cite some promising examples in Canada shortly. However, first I want to make the point that our government is far from alone in supporting this innovation.
Let us consider the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the one that came with a stark warning from the UN Secretary-General that without urgent action now, the planet is on a “fast track to...disaster”. The IPCC made clear that carbon capture technology is particularly important, and not just to get the planet closer to net zero. It also noted that even if the world reaches our net-zero 2050 objective, direct removal from the atmosphere may be needed to limit global warming.
I will cite a comment from The Guardian newspaper by Robert Gross, director of the United Kingdom's Energy Research Centre. He said, “We will need not just net zero but to start to remove CO2 from the air. We cannot do one instead of the other, but we have reached the point where it is likely that humanity will need to do both to avoid dangerous climate change.” This illustrates how important it is for us to invest in carbon capture technology.
The IPPC's position is echoed by other respected organizations. Just consider the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Its net-zero road map would require carbon capture to account for roughly 15% of global emission reductions.
Another respected global voice on climate is the International Renewable Energy Agency. It has stated that even a very aggressive ramping up of renewables will not be sufficient. That is why it considers carbon capture essential.
Finally, I will point out the Canadian Climate Institute. It also views carbon capture and removal as playing a potentially significant role in our net-zero pathway.
This is why carbon capture is a part of our recently published 2030 emissions reduction plan. It is a blueprint that outlines the technology's economy-wide applications in its sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach our targets. The fact is, we believe that carbon capture can help tackle emissions from the toughest-to-abate but crucial sectors of Canada's economy, such as oil and gas and heavy industry. More importantly, it also opens the door to low-carbon pathways, such as hydrogen, green concrete and low-emissions power.
Carbon capture also presents a multi-billion dollar market opportunity. In hydrogen alone, I note that Germany's ambassador recently described Canada as a potential hydrogen superpower. Carbon capture will play a key role in helping us produce clean hydrogen.
As I indicated earlier, this is not just about potential. Canada has long been an innovation leader. In fact, Canada is already home to leading carbon capture companies, five of which made the 2022 Global Cleantech 100 list of innovative global clean-tech firms.
We have to push harder, and that is why Canada is implementing measures that will help drive the carbon capture market here even further. Budget 2021, for instance, included $319 million to support research, development and demonstrations of carbon capture, use and storage technologies. Budget 2022 includes a proposed new investment tax credit for companies that invest in these projects. The credit is a key part of our government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization. This plan was designed after consultations with the public, stakeholders and the provinces and territories. It is intended to drive the growth of Canadian carbon capture, use and storage technologies in industries from steel and plastics to fuels and hydrogen.
In addition, our government has been engaging with key partners and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive carbon capture strategy for Canada. We plan to release this strategy in the coming months.
I indicated earlier that I would cite some real-world examples, and in doing so I will note that our government has worked arm in arm with the Alberta government and the private sector to make inroads in this area.
One is the Alberta carbon trunk line capture and storage project, the world's largest of its kind. The Government of Canada is supporting the project with $30 million through the clean energy fund, as well as $33 million from the ecoENERGY technology initiative.
Another success story is Shell Canada's Quest project. Since 2015, this project, which received early funding from Natural Resources Canada, has been reducing emissions at Shell's Scotford upgrader by 1.1 megatonnes per year. Quest remains one of the most successful carbon capture projects in the world.
I would also draw members' attention to our $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund. It contributed $25 million to support Svante, a B.C. company developing carbon capture technology for industrial applications like cement and blue hydrogen.
Canada's petroleum industry is one of the most innovative in the world. It found a way to extract oil from sand in northern Alberta and to tap wealth under the ocean floor in the treacherous North Atlantic. I believe carbon capture holds similar potential for world-class innovation, allowing Canada's economy to thrive by helping us deliver cleaner energy while driving toward our net-zero target.
That is why I believe we need to continue to work on developing carbon capture, use and storage technologies in Canada, and it is why I am proud of the plan the government has to support this important innovation to get us to the net-zero 2050 plan.
1298 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:31:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I guess I question some of the assertions he is making, given the $20 billion his government has put into building the TMX pipeline because there was no case for it in the private sector. This is to export oil, which will not be counted as part of Canada's net-zero emissions.
The Canadian Energy Regulator estimates that the amount of oil being taken out of the ground and exported in Canada in 2050 will be equivalent to what it was in 2019. I do not see how the Liberals can talk about an emissions cap when they are actually talking about an increase in production of $1.2 million barrels a day, from a sector whose oil sands are considered to have the highest carbon footprint on the planet.
How does he justify TMX, exports and the fact that the Liberals are looking to have more than a million barrels a day coming out of the ground, right up to 2050?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to justify federal investment in TMX. I am not going to justify EDC's role in financing TMX and other fossil fuel infrastructure.
What I will emphasize, though, is the importance of the overall emissions reduction plan and the serious climate action that we have seen over the last six and a half years. This is such critical action that climate experts overwhelmingly endorsed the Liberal plan in the last election. As an example, Andrew Weaver, the former B.C. Green Party leader and climate scientist, called the recent emissions reduction plan tabled just last month, an “outstanding plan”, saying “Canada [has reclaimed] international leadership on climate file.”
There are reasons for criticism, but overwhelmingly, I think there are reasons for optimism.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:33:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the conversation around carbon capture and underground storage. As the member may know, in Estevan, Saskatchewan, this whole process, the very first in the world, was developed, and it was done with coal, which is the hardest to function with. Since its opening, 4,402,000,073 tonnes of carbon dioxide have been stored underground just from that one location. Now the knowledge is there and the innovation has been done, so to go forward and do this in other areas of resources will cost far less.
I just do not understand. I would ask the member to clarify for me why, in light of the facts that the reality is the world will still need oil for the next, as they say, 20, 30 or 40 years, and the best product, the most ethical and clean, is in Canada, why would we not want to draw what still exists from oil wells, rather than increase carbon emissions by creating more wells and get more oil from other sources than what is already there?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:35:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the best argument is around opportunity costs and saying we should invest this money elsewhere, but my point is that there are many experts who do support CCUS technology, and when we look at the scale of the challenge, we should be examining and embracing every single opportunity to address climate change and reduce emissions. CCUS is one such option. We should not ignore it, and we definitely should not undermine it.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the latest budget, the Liberal government promises over $2 billion for carbon capture and storage projects for fossil fuel companies. That is more taxpayer dollars to companies that are doing very well. Imperial Oil is making more money than it has for 30 years. Suncor made a profit of almost $3 billion in the last quarter alone.
Again, is this an inefficient subsidy? Even if carbon capture projects can be developed that actually work, and there is a lot of evidence that most do not, using them to clean up an industry whose raison d'être is providing oil and gas for the world to burn to create more carbon dioxide is an highly inefficient way to wean the world off of fossil fuels.
What do Canadians get for this multi-billion dollar propping-up of oil and gas multinationals? They get record-high prices for gasoline. The oil barons are doing well, but ordinary Canadians are not. What Canadian families need is help during these times of increasing costs. We all need help transitioning to a low-carbon future. Let us imagine a future where our car, truck and home heating costs were not left to the vagaries of world markets and the international price of oil.
Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. We cannot achieve this goal if we continue to pour 14 times the number of taxpayer dollars into the fossil fuel industry than we provide to the development of renewable energy.
The latest IPCC report had a stark warning. Either we take action now on mitigation and adaptation for climate change, or we risk suffering even more severe consequences from extreme weather events, wildfires and floods.
António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, said some government and businesses have not entirely been truthful in claiming to be on track. In his words, he warned, “Some governments and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another...And the results will be catastrophic.”
Greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half by 2030, and the good news from the IPCC report is that this can be done. The final cost of necessary actions will be minimal, but will require a massive effort by governments around the world.
Wayne Gretzky once said that a good hockey player plays where the puck is, but a great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be. For Canada's energy future, the puck is going to be with renewable energy. Canada is uniquely positioned for becoming a renewable energy superpower. Our nation is rich in hydro, wind, solar power and the rare earth minerals that are needed for that low-carbon future.
458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:44:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us look very carefully at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said: Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with a price on pollution. I do not know why the Conservatives are so against a market mechanism that even Preston Manning said was the best way to reduce emissions.
We are focused on affordability. The Conservatives are playing politics. Canadians know that.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear me thank my colleague for the outstanding work that she does.
We are proud to be investing more than $25 million in this expansion project, which will help many municipalities in Montreal divert more organic materials. This will reduce our emissions by more than 13,000 tonnes a year and divert thousands of tonnes of organic waste.
This is all thanks to the hard work of our colleague from Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I outlined some of that in my speech. I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for allowing me to go on.
We need to spend those monies on reaching this future with a clean economy. I mentioned interprovincial interties in electrical redistribution. That would help us get clean electricity across the country and reduce our emissions tremendously, but it costs a couple of billion dollars for each intertie. Those are the kinds of things we have to be looking at, instead of funding the oil and gas industry, which is very profitable.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:22:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West.
I have had the opportunity to emphasize a few points already today. They are important points that we need to understand and have an appreciation for. I have talked about the differences between political entities inside the chamber. We have some in the chamber, in some political parties, who will say we are not doing enough to support the energy industry, and then we have others who say we are doing too much to support the energy industry.
As a political party and, more importantly, as a government, we have recognized the true value for all of Canada. We say that, in fact, we can be responsible for environmental stewardship while, at the same time, respecting the energy industry. We have seen a number of different policies, both through legislation and budgetary measures, that demonstrate that it is doable.
I made reference to one of the questions. We talk a lot about the environment, as well we should. I am going to repeat a quote from earlier today. It was from the former leader of the Green Party in British Columbia, Andrew Weaver. This was based on election platforms. I thought it was important to provide this quote and a little balance to it.
Andrew Weaver supported the NDP when it was in a minority situation in the province of Manitoba. He said, “I'm a climate scientist and a parent, and I've spent my life working on climate science, policy and solutions. The science is clear. Urgent action is required to mitigate the worst aspects of the climate crisis and to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. The Liberal Party of Canada's climate plan is both bold and thoughtful. It is the only credible, science-aligned climate plan put forward by any political party at the federal level to date.”
He continued, “It includes a world-leading price on carbon pollution, permanent public transit funding, rapid zero emissions vehicle deployment, which is even stronger policy than the one we developed here in B.C. as part of Clean B.C., the phasing out of coal by 2030, and much, much more. This is a plan that reflects the urgency and scale of the crisis. I am extremely impressed at how ambitious the Liberal Party of Canada's climate plan is, and I am confident that this is the right path for Canada.”
This was what the former leader of the Green Party in British Columbia had to say.
I made reference to the fact that over the last six or seven years, we have seen historical amounts of money invested in a green transition. We are talking not only about hundreds of millions of dollars, but we are going into multiple billions of dollars. It is estimated to be as high as just under $100 billion.
No government in the history of Canada has ever provided as much money towards a green transition. We have seen it done, both directly and indirectly. Money speaks volumes. At the end of the day, ours is a government that understands the importance of having a balance.
When we talk about zero emissions and achieving that goal by 2050, we have implemented legislation that has been put in place to ensure that we stay on target, even if 20 years from now we are not in government. The government in 20 years from now will have that obligation.
At the end of the day, it is not only legislation. There are budgetary measures too. There are things that have been put in place that consumers in Canada can really relate to, such as the greener homes grant. It is a great deal of money that is enabling literally thousands of people across Canada to access a grant that will enable them to improve their home, to build and to renovate.
Not only is that better for our environment, but it will also reduce the energy bills of our constituents who take advantage of that grant, while improving the communities where those homes are located. It improves the quality of Canada's overall housing stock. That is one program I have talked about, encouraged and promoted.
We can talk about the two billion trees over 10 years. That is an incredible commitment. Averaged out, that is about half million trees every day for 10 years. I know the opposition will say that they are not seeing half a million trees every day today, and that is true. That is because we cannot just take a seed and convert it into a two-year-old seedling or six-month-old seedling and plant it. It takes time.
We will see a much larger percentage of those two billion trees in the latter of those 10 years, rather than at the beginning. The point is, averaged out, how do we conceptualize two billion trees in a 10-year period of time. I would suggest to look at as half million trees a day. We have seen how well that policy has been received.
We talk about the banning of plastics, which is another regulation moved by the government to ban single-use plastics. Once again, that is something that is very popular. It is being put into place, and it will make a difference.
Going back to consumers, we have a budget that says we want to encourage members and the public to purchase and acquire electric vehicles to the point where we have provided financial incentives to do so. Some other provinces, and the first that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec, have a financial incentive to purchase an electric vehicle. I would love to see the province of Manitoba also participate in that kind of program. It did a number of years ago. These types of programs make a difference.
Earlier today I asked a question of one of my Conservative friends because many of them within the Conservative Party still have that climate denial. They do no understand and appreciate climate change. I pointed something out during a question to a member opposite because he had mentioned getting into a truck and taking trips in rural Alberta.
I said that speaking of trucks, I had talking to workers at a Ford dealership, and they were saying that for the electric version of the Ford F-150—
An hon. member: It takes two years.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it takes more than two years. Some are looking at four years, likely five years, and that was a couple months ago. It might have even been extended by now. The reason I used that example was to share with my Conservative friends that many people within their constituencies have recognized the true value of electronic vehicles.
1147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
