This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
This is a single
speech (house debate) resource
from the openparliament.ca API. If you’re new here, you might want to look at the documentation. If API and JSON are gibberish to you, you’re better off at our main site.
{
"time": "2018-06-12 23:15:00",
"attribution": {
"en": "Hon. Michael Chong",
"fr": "L'hon. Michael Chong"
},
"content": {
"en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5483801\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madam Speaker, with respect to Norway, in some ways it is much easier for them to make the case for reducing emissions than it is for us, because Norway, granted through foresight, built up a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund and now has that asset to depend on its future interest and capital gains to fund all the programs that Norwegians have come to rely upon. We do not have that here in Canada, anywhere near that scale, so I think Statoil and Norway sovereign wealth fund are in some ways in an enviable position that we simply do not find ourselves in. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5483802\" data-originallang=\"en\">What I do know is this. I believe that every major resource project in the country should undergo a proper and full environmental assessment, but if we want to combat climate change and reduce emissions, the right way to do it is not by denying the construction of new pipelines, new highways, or things like that. It is to actually properly price carbon, either through a regulatory approach or other approaches that will actually result in a reduction in emissions, rather than targeting the method by which we transport those products. </p>",
"fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5483801\" data-originallang=\"en\">Madame la Pr\u00e9sidente, en ce qui a trait \u00e0 la Norv\u00e8ge, \u00e0 certains \u00e9gards, c'est beaucoup plus facile pour ce pays de justifier une r\u00e9duction des \u00e9missions que pour le Canada, car la Norv\u00e8ge \u2014 certes, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 sa pr\u00e9voyance \u2014 a amass\u00e9 un fonds souverain d'une valeur de 1 billion de dollars et dispose, maintenant et pour l'avenir, des int\u00e9r\u00eats et des gains en capital d\u00e9coulant de cet actif pour financer tous les programmes sur lesquels comptent les Norv\u00e9giens. Nous ne disposons pas d'un tel fonds au Canada ni de rien de comparable. Je pense donc que Statoil et la Norv\u00e8ge, gr\u00e2ce au fonds souverain, sont \u00e0 certains \u00e9gards dans une situation enviable que nous ne pouvons tout simplement pas reproduire.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5483802\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici ce que je sais: je crois que chaque grand projet d'exploitation des ressources du Canada devrait faire l'objet d'un examen environnemental en bonne et due forme, mais si nous voulons contrer les changements climatiques et r\u00e9duire les \u00e9missions, la bonne fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der n'est pas de refuser de construire de nouveaux ol\u00e9oducs, de nouvelles autoroutes et ainsi de suite. Plut\u00f4t, il faut \u00e9tablir une tarification ad\u00e9quate du carbone en adoptant une approche r\u00e9glementaire ou autre qui r\u00e9duira v\u00e9ritablement les \u00e9missions, et non cibler la fa\u00e7on dont on transporte ces produits.</p>"
},
"url": "/debates/2018/6/12/michael-chong-3/",
"politician_url": "/politicians/michael-chong/",
"politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1440/",
"procedural": false,
"source_id": "10212570",
"h1": {
"en": "Government Orders",
"fr": "Initiatives minist\u00e9rielles"
},
"h2": {
"en": "Impact Assessment Act",
"fr": "Loi sur l'\u00e9valuation d'impact"
},
"document_url": "/debates/2018/6/12/",
"related": {
"document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2018%2F6%2F12%2F"
}
}