- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 4:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the affordability aspect of it, I think, is really important. I do not think it really matters what one's economic background or economic status is, but if any Canadian were to go into a hospital and receive a bill afterward, any of us would be taken aback by that just because of the concept. I have friends who live in the United States. One gave birth recently and received a bill for $26,000. It is absolutely insane.
The same logic has to apply to the medications we need. It is not even just about helping people with the costs; it is also about the investment. If we help people take care of themselves now, we are not going to have to pay as much when they end up in the hospital because they were not able to afford the medications they were prescribed.
What the bill is really about, and what I tried to emphasize in my speech, is that there are varying levels of affordability right now. Some people, 20% or so, have absolutely no coverage. Some people have the platinum level of coverage where they do not have to pay anything. Then there is everybody else in between. Some people pay 60%, and some people pay 40%, 20%,10% or whatever it is depending on who is covering them. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the coverage needs to be universal, just like the coverage is universal when it comes to receiving health care from a physician or in a hospital.
260 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 1:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, how is it possible for the hon. member to have listened to the first half of my sentence and not the second half of it? The second half of my sentence, after I said that I knew I was better off, I said that I had no problem believing the PBO when he said that that eight out of 10 Canadians were better off.
To member's point, that is why we have a rural top-up. It is why the rural top-up was doubled in the last fall economic statement. The reality is that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. More important, as I indicated at the conclusion of my speech, 94% of households that make $50,000 or less are better off.
The member is on a crusade to fight a price on pollution and to fight the carbon rebates that come along with them. He should know that his crusade is not with the least fortunate in our country. His crusade is with the best and the most well-off in our country.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 12:38:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the carbon tax, I would like to hear what the member's thoughts are specifically as they relate to the over 400 Canadian economists who have signed an open letter stating that more people get back more than they pay, confirming what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. They state that it is good environmental policy and, most importantly, good economic policy, which one would think the party that purports itself to be the champion of running an economy would agree with.
Is the member then suggesting that those 400 Canadian economists are just Liberal elites? Maybe he is, and that is fine, but can he confirm that?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 10:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the fall economic statement.
Here we are. We had to time allocate the fall economic statement. For those that might not clue in, including some of those who are heckling me already in my preamble to my speech, the fall economic statement, believe it or not, was tabled in the fall. However, here we are, as we approach June, and we still have not had an opportunity to vote on this because the Conservatives relentlessly prevent us from bringing forward an opportunity to vote. Those are the tactics that they use.
When I think about the measures that the government has brought in to support Canadians, notwithstanding the endless rhetoric that I hear from Conservatives about those measures, I am extremely proud to be part of a government that has made meaningful efforts to support communities and individuals and to give people the chances they need.
Around everything that the government has been doing, in particular the budget that we are debating concurrently with this one, the main theme is fairness. I would say the theme of fairness applies to the fall economic statement that we are debating now as well.
It is hard for me to really debate anything this week without reflecting on the comments I have heard from Conservatives in the House. The Leader of the Opposition started a discussion by saying that, if he becomes prime minister, he would use the notwithstanding clause to invoke the laws that he sees fit. He wants to live in a country where one man gets to decide what the laws are of the land. He does not care about the judiciary. He not care about the processes or the systems that are in place. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition wants, and that is what he is demonstrating when he talks about using the notwithstanding clause.
After that, we saw the member for Peace River—Westlock start to talk about the “preborn”, protecting the preborn and encouraging the government to bring in policies that would protect the preborn. It cannot be a coincidence that the Leader of the Opposition starts to talk about using the notwithstanding clause, and then Conservative members bring up the issue of abortion and outlawing abortion in Canada. It cannot be a coincidence that these people assembled on the front lawn of Parliament Hill today to cheer on the member for Peace River—Westlock and the member for Yorkton—Melville.
This is what the member for Yorkton—Melville said on the front lawn of Parliament Hill, and this is not the 1960s. It was today. She said that the truth is not being told in the media or in our House of Commons about what abortion really does to one's heart and mind, soul and body, let alone that lost life. The member then went on to speak on behalf of all Conservatives when she said, “We in the House, as Conservatives, stand for equality between men and women from the instant of conception.”
The member for Barrie—Innisfil also believes in equality from the moment of conception. I appreciate his saying that. Now we know where Conservatives stand.
People are probably wondering how this all ties into the fall economic statement. That is where I am going with this. I wish that the member for Peace River—Westlock, the member from Barrie—Innisfil and the member for Yorkton—Melville cared just a little about that child when it is an actual child.
If they did, they would vote in favour of things and support initiatives such as the national school food program that would actually put food into the bellies of children. They would support initiatives such as the Canada child benefit that actually supports children while they are growing up. They would support initiatives like $10-a-day child care to help families, and in particular mothers, who more often than not are the parent that stays at home to take care of children, and to help them when they need help.
I am aghast at how much Conservatives, including those heckling me right now, are so preoccupied with the preborn, to use the words of the member for Peace River—Westlock, and have no regard whatsoever, or at least do not acknowledge any regard, for children that need to be taken care of right now in our communities. One has to ask oneself why that is. Is it because they somehow have this passion for the preborn? No, it is not. They are not interested in children or the preborn. What they are interested in is controlling a woman's body. That is what they care about. That is the Conservatives' angle on this.
That is why 80 of the current sitting Conservative members of Parliament, I am sure more than half of them in this room right now, are endorsed by anti-abortion organizations. They have given the Conservatives the green light. Can anyone imagine an organization that gives a different colour light based on one's willingness to support its anti-choice objectives? People get a green light if they are considered really anti-choice. They get an orange light if the organization is somewhat cautious about whether it can trust that they will be anti-choice enough, and then they get a red light if they are pro-choice, meaning the organization does not support those individuals.
In 2024, this is the world we live in. I know Conservative members, in particular, female Conservative members, have challenged me, such as the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, saying how dare I talk about this issue, as though I cannot talk about this issue because I am a man. I have news for her and the Conservatives who are heckling me now. I have an obligation to ensure that my five-year-old daughter has the same rights that her mother had when she was growing up. I have an obligation to ensure that the rights that my mother's generation fought for and the rights that my wife enjoyed continue for my five-year-old daughter as she grows up. That is why I am speaking up about it, despite the Conservative heckles and despite what is happening on Parliament Hill in this chamber over the last couple of weeks.
It is extremely unfortunate that Conservatives have decided that they feel emboldened to start having these discussions once again, because their leader is giving them the authority to be the worst versions of themselves that they can possibly be. Unfortunately, that is where we are right now. The leader of the Conservative Party is encouraging members to act in the way they are acting, to say what they are saying and encouraging the members for Peace River—Westlock and Yorkton—Melville to go out on the front lawn of this place and start talking about restricting a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
As long as I am here, I will not let it happen. I will stand up to it, and I genuinely believe that a majority of the members of the House will continue to do the same.
1225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 12:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, all we are saying is that when we contribute something that is directly impacting climate change, when C02 is produced and it goes into the atmosphere, it is warming our planet whether the Conservative who is heckling me believes it or not. I am sure the member for Dufferin—Caledon is one of the climate deniers. It is a reality.
All we are saying is that we need to put a price on it, just like we put a price on garbage, just like we put a price on any other pollutant. We know that in a market-driven system, pricing something changes behaviour. It baffles me that the only political party in the Canadian House of Commons that does not understand this is the political party that somehow touts itself as being the smartest in the room when it comes to economic models and economic activity, the party that suggests that it knows better than anybody else, but cannot even understand a simple practice like pricing pollution
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess I am not surprised that Conservatives are against freeing up important money that students are going to be seeing as a result of not paying interest payments if the fall economic statement is adopted. However, I am surprised at the willingness and candour with which Conservatives are willing to say they are not in favour of that.
The member talked specifically about how those who are currently students are the ones who are going to see the economic benefit of going to post-secondary school. Has he thought about comparing the economic benefit of when my parents and his parents went to secondary school? Thirty or forty years ago, all someone had to do was go to secondary school and they were pretty much assured of getting a decent job that would enable them to provide for themselves and their family. They would have a good kick at the can, so to speak.
We now have a situation in which secondary school is not enough. Most people need post-secondary to come close to getting the same quality of employment that my parents and the member's parents were able to get a few decades ago.
Can he reflect on the fact that as there is more demand for people to go to post-secondary, the government should perhaps start playing a role in helping provide that education?
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:06:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. Yes, some Canadians who have very large homes and multiple vehicles probably end up spending more than they get back. In particular, individuals who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are certainly getting much more back than they are paying.
I find it really interesting that he accuses me of all this rhetoric. Conservatives continually miss the point of explaining to Canadians that they are going to get back more than they are paying. They would rather seek an opportunity to capitalize from a political narrative that suits them right now because it will benefit them politically. However, it will do nothing for the environment and nothing for our country.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 10:53:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
Here we are once again, talking about the same motion based on the same red herrings we have seen time and time again coming from the Conservatives. I listened to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just moments ago, where he tried to imply that the federal funding toward the reduction of emissions and toward clean technology was only one particular program. It is clear the member has no concept whatsoever of what the federal government is doing for farmers, in that there are so many programs.
When I said $6.8 million, I was giving the total number over a whole vast array of various different programs. It is not a single program, but it is not new and not unique to me to hear Conservatives talking like this. It is what they want to do repeatedly. They want to take an issue like global inflation and try to apply it to Canada and say that it is a problem only in Canada. They say that this is a problem that has been created by the price on pollution, which is ludicrous.
We know, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the price on pollution contributes to 0.15% as it relates to inflation. It is literally negligible and could be chalked up to a rounding error, yet Conservatives jump on it as though this is what is making life unaffordable for many Canadians right now. They do not want to talk about the realities. They do not want to talk about what is actually going on throughout the world and how Canada is positioning itself to be at the forefront when it comes to these new technologies.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about building car batteries in Canada. Is he not aware that the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, one of his Conservative members, had the largest investment, not in Canada but in North America, for building batteries to go into vehicles? That is all happening a 20-kilometre drive from where I live, in Hastings—Lennox and Addington. This is setting the course for the future in terms of the industry being at the forefront, so that we will not be importing technology and so that we will be the ones actually creating the technology and developing those products right here in Canada. That particular facility, Umicore, will produce 800,000 batteries to go into vehicles each and every year. It is a multi-billion dollar investment from Umicore, not just into Canada but into Ontario, into Hastings—Lennox and Addington, into the Kingston region.
This is huge, but it is only one example. We are well aware of Stellantis and the other various different players emerging in Canada as it relates to environmental technologies and the green technologies of tomorrow. People look toward Canada. Companies and businesses look toward Canada because they know we have the resources and the political will to push toward this new and emerging technology. This is why we are seeing people come and invest here.
While I am on the topic, do members know why Umicore even picked Ontario? The president of Umicore said, in his press conference, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington was there with a big smile on her face when it happened at Queen's University two summers ago, that Umicore chose Ontario because it is producing environmentally sustainable products and it wants to know that what goes into those products is environmentally sustainable. A vast majority of the resources that go into building those batteries comes from electricity, and he recognized that Ontario does not burn coal to produce electricity. That is thanks to a previous provincial Liberal government, by the way. He recognized that Ontario has taken great strides toward ensuring that we have renewable, sustainable electricity produced in a responsible way. That is why companies are choosing to invest in Canada. That is why they are choosing Ontario. That is why they are choosing Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
The mayors in the surrounding area, including in Kingston, are thrilled about this. The city councils are thrilled about this. The economic opportunities that are being produced as a result of investments like this, because of the initiatives of the Liberal government, will last for generations, quite frankly.
I get real kick out of it when I see Conservative members being super excited about these things when they are back in there ridings, but when they come to the House of Commons, they toe the line of the Leader of the Opposition, that the only solution forward is to go back to burning as much fossil fuel as we possibly can.
When we talk about the price on pollution and what Conservatives are proposing today, it is really important that we actually talk about what they are proposing. They talk about axing a lot of stuff. What they are going to be axing are rebates to families. It might not be the families that they are interested in, because lower-income families receive more through the climate action incentive rebate than higher-income families. However, the reality is that what Conservatives would be axing, is a family of four, in the spring of this year, will receive $244 for one quarter; in Manitoba, $264; in Saskatchewan, $340. The same family living in Alberta, for one quarter, would receive, and currently receives, $386.
We hear the Conservatives routinely say that we are going to double it or triple the tax, but of course they do not tell us the timeline, because some of the timelines are a decade out. However, what they forget to say is that the rebate doubles and triples as well. We recognize that in order to transition away from fossil fuels, which I want to do, and I know many members of the House of Commons, the Canadian population and a majority of our constituents want to do, we have to incentivize people to make change.
In an economic model that is built on capitalism, that is built on supply and demand, the way to incentivize people is by putting a price on things on which we want to change behaviour. We would think that the Conservatives before anybody else would know this. The same thing happens with taxes on tobacco. The same thing happens with taxes on other products where we are looking to change behaviour. However, the key difference to any other tax, and what the Conservatives never want to mention, is that in order to accomplish this, but still be reasonable for families to absorb those prices, is to return all the money to them.
The natural question is, “Why do it in the first place?” I just assumed that Conservatives could understand how market mechanisms work to incentivize and change behaviour in the market. Apparently they do not.
The good news is that we know that it is working, and we are starting to see it. The projections are showing that by 2030 over a third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed specifically to pricing pollution.
We are not the only ones that price pollution. Countless jurisdictions throughout the world price pollution. Ukraine prices pollution. Ukraine, a country that is literally at war right now, prices pollution, and it has since 2011. It was the only way that the European economy was going to let it participate in the economy. Most, if not all, European economies have a price on pollution in one form or another, whether that is a direct price, or cap and trade or one of the various different models.
The Conservatives never miss an opportunity to try to conflate and confuse Canadians as to what the realities are when it comes to the price on pollution and how it works, generally speaking.
Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the Conservatives have brought forward motion after motion on the same issue, not just the issue of pricing pollution and the fact that they are against it but on an issue that they ran on in the last election. All Conservative members in here, whether they say they agree with it or not, ran under a policy that included pricing pollution. Now they have such buyers' remorse over their last leader that they have used just about every opposition day in this session of Parliament on this issue.
I am looking forward to answering questions that my colleagues might have. I am quite certain that this is not the last time the Conservatives will bring forward this motion, but it is certainly a policy that will be to the benefit of our environment in the future.
1483 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this fall economic statement is about investing in Canadians and supporting Canadians, in particular those who need supports right now. What we are continually seeing from the Conservatives is how they talk down these supports. They start talking about removing the carbon incentive rebate cheques, taking those away from Canadians. They are talking about the putting the GST back on building homes for Canadians who need them right now.
I am wondering whether my colleague could share his thoughts on the stark difference for Canadians in terms of an option between what we are providing and what the Conservatives are proposing.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:36:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, by using similar tactics, the Conservatives did not let us vote on the last fall economic statement until June 2023. It was almost summer by the time they finally let us vote on it.
When we are wondering why we have not passed the fall economic statement, and when Conservatives get up to rhetorically wonder why that is in March, April and May, I hope they remember this moment and, undoubtedly, so many more moments like this to follow. It has just become a procedural tactic that is now also being utilized by the Bloc Québécois.
There are very important things in the fall economic statement, things that actually mean something to people and could significantly change people's lives. However, rather than actually help people, which is the reason we are here, Conservatives and Bloc members would rather just create controversy and turmoil, sometimes where it does not even exist, because it will slow things down. Their priorities do not lie with Canadians. Their priorities lie with their political futures.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not particularly disagree with the member's concerns about the future and Canadians being able to properly take care of themselves. What I do have a concern with is the approach taken by the opposition party as we talk about deficits.
The one key part of the economic equation that the member is missing out on when he is discussing this is economic growth. The reality is that if we can grow our economy as quickly as it has been growing, it puts us in a position to be able to take on more debt.
It is not just me saying this. Every Conservative prime minister in the past has run countless deficits. As a matter of fact, if we look at Mulroney and Harper, out of the 16 budgets they introduced, only three did not run deficits.
Can the member comment on how economic growth plays into this equation?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 12:04:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively. I heard the part of my colleague's speech where he talked about not having a labour shortage but a wage shortage. I may have that slightly incorrect, and he can correct me.
I found that to be very interesting. I would agree that, especially since the pandemic came along, the divergence between the haves and the have nots is getting worse and worse and greater and greater. We know that what makes the most successful society, both economically and from a societal perspective, is having a strong middle class in there.
Can he expand on that and his suggestions in order to help remedy that?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the necessity for this legislation, given the changes that have been happening, is extremely important. The member in her speech talked about the fact that things are different than they were 20 years ago or even just a few years ago. The reality is that, as we look to attract new investment and continue to open our country to investment from the world, we need to have secure legislation in place to ensure that the integrity of our economic system and our political system is kept in place.
I am wondering if the member can comment on how we can properly balance that and bring that investment into our country, investment like that in my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington, which is represented by a Conservative member, with the largest battery-manufacturing plant in North America. How do we ensure that we can have that proper balance in our country while also bringing in economic activity?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for a rudderless ship, I would say we are doing pretty well. The reality is that even when we look at something like Canada's inflationary rate among G7 partners, we have the second best next to Japan. When we look at economic growth, before the pandemic, out of the G7 partners, we were the fastest-growing economy. We are the best positioned to come out of the pandemic. The reality of the situation is, despite the fact that Conservatives might not like to acknowledge it, we are doing quite well, especially compared to our peer countries.
Would the member at least acknowledge the fact that, looking at Canada compared to some of the other countries we compare ourselves to regularly, we are doing a pretty good job?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, about 20 minutes ago, a Conservative colleague from across the way spent 10 minutes talking about one particular business in his riding and why that was not mentioned in a 10-minute fall economic statement for the entire country. However, somehow I cannot be critical of the Leader of the Opposition and his position when it comes to cryptocurrency. My humble advice—
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/22 3:44:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we will all be returning to our ridings next week to pay tribute to those who fought for our freedoms and the values we hold so dear in Canada.
Before that, today we will be hearing the fall economic statement shortly. Tomorrow, the first order of business will be a vote on the ways and means motion regarding the fall economic statement. We will then return to second reading of Bill C-27, the digital charter act.
When we come back after the break, our intention will be to immediately return to the fall economic update. We want to give the Conservatives as many opportunities as possible to speak to it so that hopefully we can vote on it in the fall and not the spring, which we did last year.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 5:13:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to hear about believing in the market system and the free enterprise system. One would think, then, that the Conservatives would understand why pricing pollution is the right thing to do, because it builds into the equation of putting a cost on pollution. The member would know from this free market enterprise system, the system he speaks so highly of, that by doing that we then incentivize companies to look for solutions, to find alternative ways of doing business to reduce their costs. That is the whole point of putting a price on pollution, making it part of the economic model of pricing something and building the inputs into that product.
Can the member at least not reflect on why he would be against something like this, since he believes in that model?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for tabling this bill, and more importantly, for the extremely well-thought-out and passionate speech she delivered to the House in presenting it.
My question is about the economic impact on people living with disabilities. Before I became involved federally, I was involved municipally in my community, and I was a member of the accessibility standing committee of our city council. One of the things we came to realize very quickly is the economic impact on those with disabilities and what that means in our communities.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on what the impact of lifting people out of poverty will be on this largest minority, as she referred to it, in our economies.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 4:34:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the challenges always has been about how to nail down a plan on something that is continually evolving, shifting and changing.
I share the member's great concern about the tourism industry. The third-biggest economic driver in my riding is tourism. That is why the government was there for tourism operators specifically when the pandemic started. It was there before the last wave and will continue to be there for tourism operators moving into the future. We cannot predict the exact moves of the pandemic, but we can be there to support small businesses and tourism operators specifically through the pandemic. That is exactly what we have been doing and continue to do.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think of both things that I brought up today: my grandparents immigrating to Canada and my desire for a clean, renewable economy that is built here in Canada. That is how we are going to get through this pandemic, the effects of the pandemic and the debt that has been taken on during the pandemic. We are going to do it by growing our economy in the right places, the places that have longevity to them, the places where we know that when we invest in technology, if we can be on the forefront of it, we will become an exporter of that technology around the world and reap the benefits from that.
That, in my opinion, should be an end goal here, and that is what I see in the budget, but also as it relates to our willingness to be an open country, to be a country that is willing to accept people from around the world and celebrate the differences they bring here, provided they want to be constructive participants in a strong economic force.
I think back to when my grandparents immigrated in the 1950s, which I referenced earlier, both sets of grandparents, from Holland and from Italy. They came here looking for a new life and prosperous opportunities so that their children could succeed. Indeed, on my mother's side, my three uncles ended up starting a housebuilding company, building custom homes, and they were quite successful during their careers.
Providing opportunities to people from around the world to come to Canada is what we have been doing. Over a million new people live in Canada now, compared to 2015. By doing these sorts of things, by being an open and welcoming country, investing in our economy and making sure that we have the right investments, we are going to grow our economy. That is how we are going to deal with the hardships of the pandemic and what was required in terms of spending during the pandemic.
I heard the member for Souris—Moose Mountain speak about carbon capture. I do not want to single him out, because a number of Conservatives have spoken about it. Carbon capture is certainly something that we can consider in the short term. It can be effective in the short term, but I cannot understand, for the life of me, why we would want to suggest that it is a long-term solution.
I am not sure if members have seen the movie Don't Look Up. It is a recent movie out on Netflix. The whole premise is that there is an asteroid coming toward earth. The default reaction is how to deal with this asteroid, but before long it turns into a conversation, in particular by those on the right, about letting the asteroid hit earth and capitalizing on it by mining the various minerals and riches the asteroid is bringing with it.
That, in my opinion, is exactly like talking about carbon capture. We know there is a problem. Why is the solution to the problem to take the problem and bury it two kilometres underground? It does not make sense to me. Of course, the Conservatives' default reaction to dealing with fossil fuels and the problems that come from fossil fuels is how to capitalize on them. I do not think this is the solution. I think the solution is investing in making sure that we build the battery technologies of tomorrow. Let us be an exporter of those battery technologies, looking at different ways to invest in zero-emission vehicles.
Zero-emission vehicles are here. We passed the tipping point. By 2035 in Canada, all vehicles sold for regular use will have to be net-zero-emitting. The vast majority will be electric. Why are we not investing in the technologies that will be required? The electric vehicle right now is where the Model T Ford was in terms of the runway for vehicles. We are just at the beginning. If we give it 10 or 15 years, we will see that the battery technology is going to very quickly adapt so that we will be able to drive 1,000 kilometres on a charge and charge almost instantaneously. That is the future.
We should be investing in this technology, so that we can be on the forefront of it, so that as a country we have the companies right here in our country because the government believes in this technology, and so that we can be exporters of that technology throughout the world.
Therefore, I am very glad to see the $1.7 billion going toward zero-emission vehicles in this budget because I think that is going to get us there.
794 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
