SoVote

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 1:17:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was a great speech. I am really glad that my colleague on the other side of the House gave a speech that talked about the importance of carbon capture, utilization and storage in our economy, and how important a part of the budget it is. However, I will remind him that it goes nowhere as far as making Canada competitive with carbon capture regimes around the world, including the United States and Norway, with whom we compete. Why are we not competitive with those two very important environmental jurisdictions? Also, why is this carbon capture credit not in the budget implementation bill? That is what we are debating in the House. If it is so important, why are we not advancing this more quickly and in a more competitive way than we are currently?

137 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/17/22 5:08:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the key principles when it comes to tackling the climate crisis and other environmental problems is the principle of polluter pays. I wonder if my colleague could comment on things like the orphan well program, in which billions of public dollars are going toward cleaning up problems created by fossil fuel companies, or, in this budget, the $2.6 billion going toward carbon capture. Do they support the principle of polluter pays?

76 words

All Topics