You are right. There are governments in the world that believe that too. However, as someone who has been involved with the OSCE, I have talked to all of these countries in the world that are looking at the issues taking place right now. They are not as single-minded and single-focused as we seem to be.
I just wanted to mention this. All energy sources leave an environmental footprint, even the 25% of the world's citizens who actually use dung for energy. You don't flood massive tracts of land for electricity for an eternity for hydro power without consequences. You don't build massive windmills without using hydrocarbons. You don't build solar panels without dealing with toxic substances, You don't mine or drill oil wells without disturbances. Plus, you need energy to build out each one of these.
I believe that when we discuss any energy source development, its transportation and use, its recycling and/or its disposal, or its effect on the living things that surround it, we have to analyze the entire upstream and downstream effects, from the first shovel digging it up to the last shovel covering it up. Only then can we talk about the consequences of these technologies of EVs, hydrogen, hybrid ICEs or full battery production, repurposing or recycling.
Only then will Canadians be able to make educated decisions about the energy options that are faced by this nation. If we take the political science out of this equation and focus specifically on the true metrics of these choices, then we will have accomplished something.
Will your government ensure in the future that all types of energy sources will be subject to the same rigorous assessment as this government has demanded with Canada's oil and hydrocarbon industry?