- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- Jun/4/24 12:33:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues is that the NDP tends to talk about corporate handouts. The only corporate handout I am aware of was a few years ago, where we provided an incentive, and I believe there were about 45 or 50 applicants, regarding refrigeration. Loblaw was one of the applicants, so we paid up to 25% for it to invest in technological advancements that would reduce emissions.
My question for the member is this: Is the NDP suggesting that when a government comes up with a policy to reduce emissions, the private sector should not be allowed to participate in that type of grant?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:59:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I probably do not have enough time to answer the question in the detail I would like, with regard to having a price on pollution and so forth, but I will pick up on the point about orphaned wells. We all need to recognize that there are orphaned wells and that it is very damaging to our environment. These wells have been there for generations. It is a question of whether we collectively, here in Ottawa, want to take some sort of action that is going to ensure that those orphaned wells are being addressed. If that means the federal government needs to be able to contribute in order to make that a reality, I think it is money well spent. There does need to be a higher sense of accountability from some of our oil companies. I have full confidence in our ministers, whether it is the natural resources minister or the Minister of Environment, to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability going forward on issues such as orphaned wells and the ways in which we can continue to diminish emissions.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 1:11:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak to the important issue of a price on pollution and the carbon rebate.
I want to take a bit of a different angle on just how isolated the Conservative Party of Canada is today. When we look at the issue of a price on pollution, we will find it actually originates in 2015 in Paris, where the world came together and said not only that climate is change real but also that we need to take a policy direction around the world to try to limit the amount of emissions and ultimately reduce them so we would have a better environment worldwide.
What we have witnessed over the years is a high level of participation from countries around the world. For example, the European Union, which is made up of many different countries, including France, Italy and so many others, came up with the green deal, which in essence is about a price on pollution. We can also look at countries like Ireland, England and Mexico. We often say that the United States does not have a price on pollution, but that is not quite accurate because there are many American states that do.
Not only does Canada have a national price on pollution, but the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec also have a price on pollution. In the House of Commons today, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party are in favour of a price on pollution. We used to have a Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, who was in favour of a price on pollution. Then we have to factor in where the Conservative Party is today. The Conservatives have isolated themselves to say that they do not support a price on pollution, even though under their former leader Erin O'Toole, in that policy platform, all the Conservatives, including the current leader, advanced, promoted and encouraged a price on pollution. It is in their platform.
What we have witnessed since the new leader was minted not that long ago is that the far right element of the Conservative Party has taken control. The whole idea of the MAGA Conservatives has taken control through the leadership of the Conservative Party today. Because of that, Conservatives have changed their mind. They now say they are not in favour of a price on pollution. The world is changing and is recognizing the importance of a sound policy decision, but an irresponsible Conservative Party today is saying no to a price on pollution.
England today is saying to countries around that world that if they are going to be exporting products to England and do not have a mechanism for a price on pollution, they are going to have to pay additional fees on that merchandise going into England. That is something it is acting on and is going to be putting into place. What does the Conservative Party really think about a price on pollution and the impact that will have on trade?
We saw that with the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, where Conservatives were prepared to use it as their sole issue as part of the rationale for opposing the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because there was reference to a price on pollution. It was not always their sole issue but was their second issue. If we think about it, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Ukraine wants to be able to have a formal trade agreement with the European Union, which also has a price on pollution.
However, the Conservative leadership and the members across the way have closed their eyes like an ostrich, put their head in the sand and do not recognize good, sound policy. I can say that is not in the best interest of Canadians, just like it was not in the best interest of Canadians when the Conservative Party voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That is the reality. The statements and the policy direction of the Conservative Party, with the far right element, is to the detriment of good, sound public policy, which is going to be there for future generations of Canadians and others. Canada needs things such as trade agreements. We need international trade; that is a good thing.
The rest of the world is recognizing that the environment matters and that the price on pollution is an effective tool, but we have the leader of the official opposition going around saying he is going to get rid of the price on pollution. How backward-thinking is that when we contrast it to what the rest of the world is doing? That is not responsible public policy-making.
Instead, the Conservatives are more focused on developing a bumper sticker that they believe is going to get them votes. They believe they are going to be able to fool Canadians. That is the bottom line. They have no faith in Canadians' understanding the reality; we see that in what they are telling Canadians.
The question I had earlier today for the leader of the official opposition was this: Why does the Conservative Party not participate in political panels on CTV or CBC? Canadians still view those networks.
One member is saying, “No, they do not.”
Mr. Speaker, CTV and CBC would argue differently, and so would I. I think CTV and CBC have played a very important part in public debate for generations. The leader of the Conservative Party says they are state-operated organizations. How ridiculously stupid is it to make that sort of assertion? The leader says it not only here in the House; he says it outside the House also as he chooses to avoid true accountability on some of the stupid things he is saying, things that are absolutely misleading.
He will go to the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec and try to give the false impression that they have the same sort of carbon taxing system as Manitoba, Atlantic Canada, Alberta and others have. That is just not true. He tries to tell people in the provinces where there is a carbon tax, a federal backstop of a carbon tax, that they are paying far more into the carbon tax system than they are receiving.
Again, we have said very clearly, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out by his specific example, that a vast majority of people actually receive more money back from the rebate than they pay through carbon tax on gas and heating their homes. That is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made very clear. Over 80% of people will receive more dollars back than they will put directly into the carbon tax. That is indisputable. Members of all political parties, except for the Conservatives, are acknowledging that.
What does that mean? When the leader of the Conservative Party travels the country and says he is going to axe the tax, it also means he is going to get rid of the rebates. When Conservatives talk about getting rid of the rebates, they are telling well over 80% of my constituents that they will have less disposal income because of that particular action. I find disgraceful what the leader of the official opposition is spreading across the country.
1229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 11:13:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would not necessarily say that is fully accurate. I was very encouraged about today's announcement, and if I had had more time, I would have really gone into it.
The government is looking at a regulated cap-and-trade system to be established under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It would apply to all upstream oil and gas production, including offshore development as well as liquefied gas operations. Together, this represents approximately 85% of the sector's total emissions. The proposed system would include two limits: an emissions cap and a higher legal upper bound. Facilities can emit more than the emissions cap, up to the legal upper bound, by using offsets or contributing to a new decarbonization fund that would support additional reductions in the sector.
There is a lot more information available on what the government has announced today. It is a good day. It is also part of what I said earlier, which is that the government is focused on dealing with the environment. We do have a plan on the environment, unlike the official opposition.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:57:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the ways that the Conservative Party is offside and maybe do bit of contrast for members.
If we look at the emissions graph, over the last number of years we have witnessed a shift. The curve is now starting to bend in a direction that I believe Canadians would be very supportive. Had there not been a change in government back in 2015, and under Stephen Harper's leadership, the curve would have continued up by an estimated nine points. Over the last number of years, the line has gone down by seven points under this administration. We are going in the right direction when it comes to greenhouse emissions, which is an important issue to Canadians. In real numbers, I am told it is like 53 megatonnes. For my constituents who are like me, I try to better understand what that means. That is the equivalent of 11 million cars being taken off the road.
The population of Manitoba is about 1.3 million people. The population of Saskatchewan, I would guesstimate, is probably somewhere around 1.15 million. The population of the province of Alberta is well over three million, from what I can recall. We could take away every vehicle in the Prairies. Over the last number of years that is 53 megatonnes of GHG, or 11 million vehicles. To me, that speaks volumes about what the government has been able to achieve in a relatively short time span. We were able to achieve that through providing different forms of incentives and programs.
I want to highlight the fact that we know Canadians want to participate. I have heard this for many years. I remember being in the Manitoba legislature and we were talking about banning plastic bags. We can look at the banning of single-use plastics, on which this government has moved forward, or our budget measures on financial incentives to support people. Our constituents would like to do more on the environmental front. We have programs like the greener homes grant. The uptake has been fantastic. A number of people in all regions of the country are participating in a program that will ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions, again, a budgetary measure.
Another program is about electric vehicles. It is interesting when we look at the numbers. Canadians are choosing electric vehicles faster than expected, with 10% of new vehicles being ZEVs in the first half of 2023. These types of vehicles are a dependable form of transportation, with lower operating costs and reducing the environmental footprint. In its budget measures, the federal government has provided incentives. Some of the provinces have done likewise. Canadians are taking advantage of those programs. We have seen a high demand for those vehicles. I would suggest that it has been very successful.
When I think of how industry has benefited, two companies that come to mind right away are Stellantis, with the benefits that are being created there, and Volkswagen. Volkswagen is a substantial investment of a private company and both federal and provincial governments. Today, we have the Conservative Party opposing the agreement that we achieved with Volkswagen, contrary to even Doug Ford, but there is a difference, I guess, as the provincial party is a little more progressive than the federal Conservative Party. However, at the end of the day, we can think of the results and the potential that is there when we get companies around the world recognizing that Canada is on the right track when it comes to dealing with emissions.
Volkswagen, in many ways, is one of the leaders in the world moving forward in the electrification of vehicles. It made a decision not to go to the United States but to come to Canada and make a serious investment. Once that investment is complete, it will be the largest manufacturing processing facility in Canada and, I am told, even in North America. I think it will be something like 200 football fields. It is going to be a huge plant. We can think of the types of green jobs that are going to be there as a direct result of Volkswagen making that decision.
Where is the Conservative Party? It actually opposed what the federal government has done with Volkswagen. Its members do not like the fact that the federal government made a decision to make a financial contribution, even though the Progressive Conservative provincial government of Ontario has done likewise, not to mention the community of St. Thomas itself, which has also come to the table because of infrastructure. This brings real life to an industry that has the potential to grow, and the Conservatives and the climate deniers are completely offside.
It is not just the province of Ontario that would benefit. We can think of the minerals involved and the other components. It is not just Ontario or the St. Thomas community that is going to benefit from this. All of Canada, if not directly, will indirectly benefit from this, and it does not stop there. I think of Stellantis and how, in Canada, the industry of electrification of vehicles continues to grow, and those two companies are not alone.
Is it any wonder that today we lead the G7 in foreign investment coming into Canada? As a political entity, the Government of Canada recognizes that green jobs are golden jobs going forward, and we need to see those types of investments. As a government, from day one, we have supported Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for everyone.
As the Conservative Party's single focus seems to be on spreading misinformation, filibustering and ultimately playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, we will continue to be solely focused on having the backs of Canadians and providing the jobs that are going to be there for the future to ensure that life remains affordable and to deal with the issues that we know are important to Canadians. That means, in good part, dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way.
1034 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 7:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the environment, we have a government that has clearly demonstrated, since coming to office in 2015, a genuine and sincere commitment to Canada's environment. In fact, the total greenhouse emissions that have been taken away are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 53 million tonnes since 2015. That is the equivalent of 11 million gas vehicles. Looking at it from a world perspective, of all the G20 countries, Canada is the only one that has actually eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. We even did that in advance of the dates by which we said we would do it. We have a government that has made the commitment to put a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
If we contrast the messaging that I hear tonight from the member across the aisle to the way in which she actually voted the other day on the Conservative opposition motion, there are a number of progressive people who are who are looking at the NDP and are getting a confused message. Part of what we talk about is how people can actually convert from oil heating to heat pumps, and I think the NDP might have been manipulated into supporting the Conservative motion in regard to the policy that the government put into place. That policy is to get people throughout Canada to take advantage of conversion from oil heating to heat pumps, which are much better for the environment and more affordable for Canadians.
Games were played. In the House, the majority of the political entities, including the Greens, the Bloc members and obviously the Liberals, saw what the Conservatives were doing. The NDP, on the other hand, voted with the Conservatives. It sends a very mixed message when the member stands up and talks about emissions and then votes for a motion that goes against a price on pollution, remembering that with the price on pollution there are also the rebates that complement it. It also goes against the idea of sound policy that would ensure that more people convert to heat pumps from oil heating.
I would suggest that is a good thing, and the government has a good track record already on that. The greener homes program, again, is about tens of thousands of homes, in all regions of the country combined, that have actually made a conversion and are now using heat pumps, recognizing that heat pumps are far better for our environment. This is a program, as an example, which the government has brought forward.
Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have been found to be a very progressive government in dealing with the environment and emissions.
451 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:28:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be completely honest, I am not too sure of the details in what the member is referencing. I do know that we believe in fair taxation and people should be expected to pay their fair share of taxes.
For example, in the budget, we brought in the temporary Canada recovery dividend, which applied to banks and insurance companies, that will generate several billions of additional dollars from excess profits. We are looking at caps regarding emissions, oil and so forth. I just do not know the details to the degree that I can confidently comment on it.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:32:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc is voting against this for a totally different reason. It wants to break up Canada. It is a party that does not want the federal government playing a role more than just handing over money. That is the Bloc's position and that is why it is ultimately opposing it.
Needless to say, under the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there are a number of projects in the province of Quebec. One of the projects I like is the 4,000 zero-emissions school buses project. I suspect there is a very good chance that project, in good part, is made possible because of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
All communities will directly or indirectly benefit by the investments of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Bloc does not like the Canada Infrastructure Bank because it goes against what it is as a political entity. Would the member not agree?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:15:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my apologies. I withdraw the name.
The former leader of the Conservative Party campaigned on the policy that a price on pollution, or a carbon tax, is a good thing. The member stands up and says we are misleading Canadians, yet he campaigned on a platform that made it very clear to Canadians that, if the Conservatives were elected into government, they would put a price on pollution. I think the member needs to reflect on the issue of misleading Canadians, because there is no doubt about that. We could show him the platform position of the Conservative Party, the platform that he himself has raised.
The member also made reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there was a net loss. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also indicated that when we factor in the rebate portion, 80% of the population will receive more money than they are paying in the tax. One might argue we should factor in this and that, but I would suggest that if we factor in this and that, like floods, forest fires and all the other factors, they would also have to be calculated in. The bottom line is that the same Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that, dollar for dollar, there is a net gain for 80% of the population.
When we talk about other jurisdictions, we now have Atlantic Canadians seeing the benefits of having the rebate structure we have in place. Those provinces are now moving to the federal program, which is something they opted to do.
I would suggest that one of the best ways of dealing with emissions and being sensitive to our environment is to recognize what many governments around the world have done, including this government, which is to assign a price on pollution. Interestingly enough, members might be surprised to know that the first legislative government to ever do something of this nature was the Alberta Conservative Party many years ago.
336 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 6:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, building on the outcomes of COP26, Canada's engagement in the lead-up to and at COP27 was an opportunity to highlight our government's ambitious domestic climate actions, including by sharing best practices and lessons learned, as well as advocate for ambitious and concrete action by all, particularly major emitters.
Our government was pleased to set up Canada's first national pavilion at COP27, providing an opportunity to showcase Canadian climate action, amplify global efforts, support the developing countries and support the Egyptian presidency priorities. Canada continues to work with all parties to make the UNFCCC process as effective as possible with a focus on implementation.
It is undeniable that the impacts of a changing climate pose a serious and significant threat not only to our health but also to the Canadian economy. I agree with the hon. member that Canada and, indeed, all of the world's nations need to step up efforts to decarbonize our economies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
That is why, since coming to power, our government has taken bold and decisive action by introducing strong environmental legislation and by putting in place regulations that will cap emissions and set Canada on a path to becoming net-zero by 2050.
My hon. colleague knows that our government has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by the year 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. We introduced the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to help us deliver on these commitments.
Most recently, we released the 2030 emissions reduction plan. This plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments and provides a framework for meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target. During the last federal election, we pledged to step up our efforts to reduce Canada's reliance on more carbon-intensive sources of energy by accelerating our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuels, from 2025 to 2023. We have also invested over $120 billion in climate action and environmental protection that will bring forward results throughout the Canadian economy.
The environmental measures we have brought forward are intended to provide a cleaner and healthier environment for our children and grandchildren while promoting a strong economy that works for Canadians and their families.
From a consumer point of view, I will quickly add that we talk about things such as the banning of single-use plastic items, the planting of literally hundreds of millions of trees, and the types of things that Canadians can actually step up and also contribute to. There are the bigger, macro issues that the government is dealing with, and there are also those issues where Canadians have demonstrated a wonderful willingness to participate in making our planet a greener and better place to be.
473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 1:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt what is important is that the Government of Canada needs to take initiatives. We have seen many of those initiatives in budgetary and legislative measures, and I make reference to the net-zero legislation as an example. However, it also needs to work along with other provinces, as it did with the Province of British Columbia, where it worked with the NDP government and came up with the LNG project.
There is no doubt that, for many environmentalists, it puts a bit more pressure on the government at a different end. In good part, it is working with the different jurisdictions and doing the best it can to try to decrease emissions. At times, there are some developments that do need to advance, but it needs to be done in an environment that is sound and by working with indigenous communities and the different provinces as much as we can.
156 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
- 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
- Apr/25/22 4:08:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member, and one of the things that comes to my mind is the reality of truth. The member makes reference to there not having been any increase to health care, but there has been an increase of over $2 billion. He asks what the Canadian Infrastructure Bank is doing. Talk to the city of Brampton and other cities and municipalities. The city of Brampton got a $400-million zero-emissions public transit program.
When Conservative members stand to speak, they need to take the Conservative spin off the papers that they are reading or quoting from and focus on the reality. The reality is that this budget supports Canadians, supports businesses and provides hope for the future of Canada.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, right up front, I acknowledge what our farming and rural communities have done over generations in elevating Canada as a nation to where we are today. I have had many different experiences and will provide some comments on that, but I will start off by thanking our farmers and those who contribute to our farming communities.
It is important for us to recognize that the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is in fact by putting a price on pollution. This is not only believed by the Government of Canada. Governments around the world, provincial governments and individuals in virtually all political parties in Canada, at least elected political parties, have recognized the true value of a price on pollution.
Earlier today, I posed a question to some of my Conservative friends, when they were talking about the price on pollution, on where the Conservative Party might stand. I did not hear the member indicate that he was in opposition to the need for a price on pollution. I do believe there are a number of Conservative members who understand and value it. In fact, in the last federal election, as we saw in the Conservative Party campaign, part of its platform was to incorporate a price on pollution. It will be very interesting to see how the Conservatives move forward on that particular policy.
I can look at this in terms of the communities in Manitoba, an area that I am very passionate about. I have seen the valuable contributions that its agricultural communities and the whole sector have made to our province, Canada and the world. I would like to provide some personal examples of that.
Driving along Highway 2 in the evening, we can see a number of combines harvesting food to feed the world. It looks pretty impressive at night seeing the assembly of these combines and the trucks lined up to receive the grain. When we look at the way Manitoba has led the world with regard to the development of canola and the impact that has had, we see the technology there and the sensitivity to our environment, which has always been there, by our farming community. We have seen that in the ways that farming has changed over the years. I can remember as a 14-year-old, which is a number of years back, running a four-wheel John Deere tractor, pulling a cultivator and going through a field. More recently, last summer, I was on a farmer's field where they are raising cattle, in between visiting dairy farms and getting a better understanding of an industry that I often talk about.
If we do a history of some of the speeches I have given in the House, I often talk about Manitoba's hog industry and the role it plays in the province of Manitoba. We have an industry that is very much alive and doing exceptionably well, and it is growing.
We have stakeholders such as Peak of the Market. It collects vegetables and other things, promotes Manitoba-grown products and markets them not only to the province of Manitoba, but to the world.
We have seen the benefits of it. When someone thinks of a hog farm, we do not necessarily believe the first room we will go into will be a room in which we get ourselves cleaned up and put on a smock and then walk into a computer room, where, through technology, we get a better appreciation of how hogs are raised on the local farm nowadays and on some of those large hog plants.
It is very impressive, and it is the farmer who tells us what he is doing to ensure he has a positive attitude toward the manure generated by the hogs and how it is being used, as much as possible, in a responsible fashion.
If we go north of Winnipeg to the Gimli area, we will see the cattle farmers. Again regarding the issue of the environment, just last summer we were talking about the issue of drought and realizing that climate change is real.
When I took a tour of that particular farm, one could be very sympathetic to the needs of our farmers.
In fact, a week or maybe 10 days later, the Minister of Agriculture went to visit the very same farm because, when we think of Peak of the Market, there are many different stakeholders that are out there.
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association provided me with the opportunity to take a tour of that particular facility, and I indicated to Robyn that I would like to be able to get an even more comprehensive understanding of that industry, as I have of the chicken processing industry, from the way in which eggs are hatched to the filling of a barn to the processing at a plant.
I am absolutely fascinated by the way in which Manitoba farmers, in particular, have taken on the responsibility of society to be there to feed the world.
Within the Liberal government caucus, we have a rural caucus. We have individuals who talk about farms and agriculture daily. It is not only an issue of being sympathetic to farmers. It also means being there for farmers in real and tangible ways, as I have been, with ministers of agriculture on a couple of occasions in the province. We have taken tours or participated in gaining more knowledge about this industry that is so critically important to all of us.
I am very proud of the fact that the University of Manitoba has a department of agriculture. It is not the only post-secondary facility to do so, but I highlight this one because I know the fine work it does.
When we talk about canola and the development of canola, there is so much we can all move forward to. We can say that, as a government, we are sensitive to it and we will continue to look at ways in which our policies will not harm farmers but rather will support them.
1019 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
