Terry BEECH

BEECH, Terry

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Burnaby North--Seymour (British Columbia)
Birth Date
January 1, 1980
Website
http://terrybeech-parl.ca
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5fb3ff09-e569-441c-bbba-5972cd1f656c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Email Address
Terry.Beech@parl.gc.ca
Profession
adjunct professor, business owner, contractor, educator

Parliamentary Career

October 19, 2015 -
LIB
  Burnaby North--Seymour (British Columbia)
  • Parliamentary Secretary for Science (December 2, 2015 - )

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 33)


June 18, 2019

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I would specifically like to talk about the national price on pollution. It was implemented on April 1. I am glad that the Conservative Party gave it a full 78 days so that they could gather the evidence they need to tell us whether it was successful or not.

I would refer the member to British Columbia, where this was first implemented 11 years ago. If we look at the data there, of course, we had reductions in per capita emissions, and at the same time, we had the fastest-growing economy in the country.

The member talked in his speech about emissions going down during the Conservatives' time. The only time that happened was during recessions, a climate plan so nice that the Conservatives did it twice the last time they were in government. That is not a way to actually protect the environment. Maybe the member is going to point to Doug Ford's plan in Ontario, one that is twice as expensive and is not getting the job done.

This is why the Conservatives voted against the climate change emergency. The Conservatives' number one promise is to repeal the national price on carbon. They are looking at the people of British Columbia, people who have done this for 11 years, and are saying, “Guess what, you have been doing it for 11 years, and finally the rest of the country came onside on April 1, but we are going to take that away. You guys in B.C. keep paying, but we are not paying anymore.” How does the member think that is fair?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Business of Supply
Full View Permalink

June 18, 2019

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments, as I know she did when I gave my presentation yesterday. There was a particular part of the presentation I gave yesterday that had to do with growing the economy, and I heard some groans from the member opposite, so I thought I would give her an opportunity to address it.

During my speech, I talked about how our government is working to both protect and restore the environment and to also grow the economy. I heard those groans when I started talking about the economy. Specifically, I addressed the fact that in 152 years, the Government of Canada has accrued about $688 billion worth of debt. Taken over 152 years, it is an average deficit of about $4.5 billion a year. However, that does not tell the whole story, because most of that debt has been accrued since I have been alive. In fact, $490 billion of it was accrued under the previous two Conservative prime ministers. That means that 72% of our country's entire debt happened under Stephen Harper or Brian Mulroney.

Given that, I would like to know why the member is so worried about being fiscally responsible, when she is a member of that party.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
Full View Permalink

June 18, 2019

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, we have had a price on pollution nationally for 78 days. However, I want to speak specifically about our home province of British Columbia.

This member knows that the Conservatives' number one promise is that if they are able to form government, the first day they are elected they will remove the revenue-neutral federal backstop. This will do absolutely zero to change the price on pollution in British Columbia, because that price on pollution was implemented by the B.C. Liberals and has continued to be supported by the NDP. Both sides of the B.C. government support carbon prices in British Columbia. Why? It is because it has been effective. Per capita emissions have gone down, while we have had one of the fastest-growing economies in the country.

Basically, what this member is promising his constituents back home is that we will continue to pay carbon taxes in B.C., but he will get rid of them for the rest of the country. How does he think that is fair?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Business of Supply
Full View Permalink

June 17, 2019

Mr. Terry Beech

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatchewan is my previous neighbour on the same floor in the Confederation Building. We have had many opportunities to talk about various issues.

With regard to the defining difference the member raised, we are looking at banning persistent oils under a definition that is internationally recognized. These are oils that once they enter a marine or terrestrial environment, are very difficult to dissipate. If there is an incident with respect to non-persistent oils, such as the natural gas he has stated, there is a greater rate of evaporation, which makes it easier to minimize the environmental impacts.

Therefore, as we do with all our legislation in the House, this balances both the economic opportunities for the region with the environmental protections, which are also the backbone of the economic activities in the region today.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
Full View Permalink

June 17, 2019

Mr. Terry Beech

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver Island is my previous home town. My friend and I have had the opportunity to work on several pieces of legislation, including in my previous role in fisheries.

It is important to bring to the attention of the House the extraordinary history that has led to the creation of Bill C-48. In 1971, a House committee suggested we oppose tanker traffic off the north coast of British Columbia. This was also backed by a unanimous motion by the B.C. legislature, also in 1971, opposing crude oil tankers on the north coast.

Some actions went all the way to 1985, when the first voluntary tanker exclusion zone was negotiated and then formalized in 1988. Of course, this happened just before the major incident in 1989 of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska, just showing how important this measure is.

With regard to the question of the limit of 12,500 metric tonnes, that was done in consultation with industry, environmental organizations, local governments and indigenous people. We think we got the number right.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
Full View Permalink