44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/9/24 10:20:41 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That the House declare that the Prime Minister convene a carbon tax emergency meeting with all of Canada’s 14 first ministers; that this meeting address:
(a) the ongoing carbon tax crisis and the financial burden it places on Canadians,
(b) the Prime Minister's recent 23% carbon tax increase,
(c) plans for provinces to opt-out of the federal carbon tax to pursue other responsible ideas to lower emissions, given that under the government's current environmental plan, Canada now ranks 62 out of 67 countries on the Climate Change Performance index; and
that this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.
Imagine for a moment a person who fell into a coma in 2015 and who wakes up today. Imagine the last impression that they would have had at the time, in 2015, when inflation and interest rates were almost as low as they have ever been in the history of Canada. At that time, taxes were falling faster than at any time in Canadian history. The budget was balanced. Crime had just fallen 25%, and small-town folks could even leave their doors unlocked.
Our borders were secure and our immigration system was working. It was not perfect, but overall, established Canadians and newcomers were satisfied with the situation, which was orderly and compassionate. Housing cost half of what it does today, the average rent was $950, an almost laughably low number by today's standards, and take-home pay had risen by 10% after tax and after inflation. This represented one of the largest pay and income increases for Canadians in a half century. In fact, this was even making news internationally. The New York Times said that Canada's middle class was richer than America's for the first time. At the same time, trouble was brewing in the world, with wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, none of which caused inflation here at home.
However, now the person has awoken, eight years later, to find a completely different country. Inflation, after hitting a 40-year high, is still higher than its Bank of Canada target. Per capita income is declining. In fact, Canada has the worst per capita income growth rate of all the G7 countries, and it is expected to have the worst OECD growth out of 40 developed countries for the next five and a half years and the next 35 years.
Some families have had their existing mortgages extended to 90 years or even 120 years because their mortgage loan is higher now than when they took it out, due to interest rate hikes that the Prime Minister had promised would never occur. Houses in Canada now cost 50% more than in the United States. People can buy a castle in Sweden for a lower cost than they could buy a two-bedroom apartment in Kitchener. Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world according to UBS Bank. Vancouver is the third-most expensive city when comparing median income to median housing prices. Vancouver is more expensive than New York, London, Singapore and other places that have more people, more money and less land. Fewer houses were built last year than in 1972.
That person waking up today would learn something else: Our national debt has doubled. When they fell into a coma, the national debt was about $600 billion. Now it is up to $1.2 trillion.
The debt has doubled. This Prime Minister has added more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined.
The streets have become unsafe. There has been a 100% increase in the number of criminal shootings. People are afraid to walk down the street. Crime is everywhere. Cars are disappearing. When the person wakes up, they will hear Toronto's chief of police telling people to keep their keys near the door so that car thieves can peacefully steal their vehicles. That is the Canada they will wake up to. The Prime Minister's solution to all this is to increase taxes and deficits and to let more criminals loose. Another thing the person will see is that the Bloc Québécois supported all of the policies that led to this nightmare.
There is still hope, however, because there is something else the person will see when they wake up: a common-sense party that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. The first step will be for the Prime Minister to meet with the provincial premiers to reverse the policies that caused the hell we are experiencing across the country and to discuss axing the carbon tax and other taxes in order to allow Quebeckers and all Canadians to succeed through hard work and pay an affordable price for food, housing and gas in a free country. That is good old common sense, and that is what we are offering.
Imagine that, in fact, someone had been in a coma for the last eight years. They would have gone to sleep in 2015 in a country where inflation and interest rates were rock-bottom, taxes were falling faster than at any time in Canadian history, the budget was balanced, crime had just fallen 25% so small-town folks could leave their doors unlocked, our borders were secure and our immigration system was uncontroversial, with everyone agreeing it worked and was the best in the world. Housing cost half of what it does today; the average rent was $950, an almost laughably low number by today's standards. Take-home pay had risen by 10% after tax, and after inflation in the preceding years. The New York Times had just called Canada “the richest middle class”; in fact, it said that Canada's middle class was richer than America's for the first time.
This was with lots of trouble in the world, with wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and, yes, Ukraine, none of which caused inflation here at home. At the time, of course, we had former prime minister Harper, who was able to keep inflation and unemployment low even while the world suffered turmoil.
However, now the person has awoken, eight years later, to find a completely different place. Inflation, after hitting a 40-year high, is still 50% higher than its 2% target. The economy is shrinking in per capita terms; it is smaller than it was six years ago, perhaps the first time that has ever happened in Canadian history. Canada is expected to have the worst OECD growth out of 40 countries for the next five and a half years and the next 35 years.
It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment for a mortgage in Toronto, and many people have had their existing mortgage extended to 90 years and 120 years, meaning their great-grandchildren will still be paying it off. Houses in Canada now cost 50% more than in the United States. People can buy a castle in Sweden for a lower cost than for a two-bedroom home in Kitchener. Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is the third-most expensive when comparing median income to median housing prices.
This is the nightmare that would have been unimaginable to someone had they fallen into a coma and just awoken now. However, there is good news. They do not want to fall back into a coma, because the best is yet to come. We now have a common-sense Conservative alternative that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We call on the Prime Minister to meet the premiers and talk to them about their desire to see the tax cut or eliminated altogether.
Let us grant relief to our people now until there can be a carbon tax election, where the people of this country will restore the common-sense consensus that will allow anyone from anywhere to do anything their birthright is, so that with hard work they can afford a good home and good food in a safe neighbourhood in the country we love, which is all of our homes. It is their home, my home and our home. Let us bring it home.
1413 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:31:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the leader of the official opposition's speech is that it is often, whether it is inside the House or outside the House, factually incorrect. If they are axing anything, it is the facts, and the reality they portray is exceptionally misleading.
For example, he talks about there being no immigration problems. He can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor parents or he can tell that to the thousands of people who could not sponsor a spouse when he was actually in government, when immigration was a so-called no problem. Those are the actual facts.
He talked about the economy. It took Stephen Harper 10 years to create a million jobs. In less than eight years, we have doubled that. We have created over two million jobs. I am wondering if the member could be a bit more honest with the facts, whether it is here or outside of Ottawa.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:52:37 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons, although it is sad that we are debating the same tired argument that the Conservatives have been bringing forward for the last two years. It is clear that the Conservative war on facts, evidence and science continues, even since the Harper era. Now it is math they disagree with.
The failed former leader of the Conservative Party from Regina—Qu'Appelle and the petro-puppet from Carleton are on this cover-up campaign with the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, who raised the price of gas on April 1 by more than the price on pollution. By the way, that price increase did not include any type of rebate, so it is clear why the Conservatives are here and who they are here for. It is not for Canadians or to stand up for affordability; it is to play a role in the cover-up campaign for the Premier of Alberta and to defend the greedy corporate interests of big oil and gas giants, as they always have.
Nothing changes with the Conservative Party, but things are changing with our climate. In fact, March 2024 was the hottest March ever on record. Guess what, Mr. Speaker: February had the highest temperature and was the hottest February ever on record. January was the same. Actually, that has been the case for the last 10 consecutive months. Every single month has been a record-breaking month for temperature. The hottest year on record was 2023. Now, in 2024, it is only April and there are already wildfires burning. Last year, 5.7 million acres of Canadian forests burned down because of out-of-control wildfires, and the Conservative leader blamed it on arson, which we know is not the case. Climate change has dried our forests out and increased the severity of wildfires.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Mr. Speaker, even still, the Conservative caucus of climate change deniers is heckling over there. I know Conservatives do not believe in climate change, but Canadians do; they demand that we stand up, lower our emissions and take a leading role on fighting climate change around the world.
If one does not believe in climate change, then one must believe in the amount of money these wildfires are costing Canadians. There was over $1.5 billion in economic losses last year just from wildfires and an incremental $700 million of insured losses. That does not include drought, floods, hurricanes, extreme weather or hyperfocused precipitation, as we have seen across this country.
Climate change is an existential threat to our economy, our livelihoods and our very lives, and the Conservatives want to ignore it. Who do they want to rely on for insight, for expertise and research? Our universities provide us with that insight. Last week, when 200 leading economists from across this country wrote an open letter in support of carbon pricing, a spokesperson for the Conservative leader, the petro-puppet from Carleton, called them “so-called ‘experts’”. I am sorry, but these are people who earned their degrees. They went to university, did the research and got a Ph.D. They are experts, not so-called experts. They are leading researchers in the field. This is coming from a guy who has never earned an honest red cent in his life. He has never contributed a dollar to our economy. This is the only job he has ever had, here in the House of Commons. It is pathetic coming from somebody with no expertise.
I would like to spend the rest of my time today reading into the record the open letter from the economists on the Canadian carbon pricing. This is not political rhetoric, a bumper sticker or a slogan that looks good on a hoodie. We are getting facts and evidence, irrefutable mathematics, from our experts.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Winnipeg North.
671 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:09:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an issue that I am sure most Canadians will find the Conservative Party is in want of, which is an actual idea to deal with the price on pollution or the environment. The Conservatives, in fact, are like a fish out of water at times, flopping all over the place. It is hard to actually pin them down. I do not say that lightly.
I would like to convey this for my Conservative friends across the way. Let us look back to 2015, when countries around the world went to Paris. One consensus from the Paris conference was that the climate mattered, that there were initiatives that governments around the world should take to deal with the climate crisis.
Canada was one of those countries to make that decision to bring in a carbon tax, carbon rebate process to support what had come out of the Paris conference. It was meant to be used as a national backstop.
For example, the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec do not have the carbon tax, carbon rebate policy. We have seen some provinces back away from the program they had in favour of the national price on pollution or the carbon rebate and carbon tax. They did that, at least in good part, because they recognized the value of the national program. However, nothing prevents a province from going on its own and developing what the world is demanding, recognizing that we should be concerned about our environment. The price on pollution is a way to deal with that.
The Conservatives have agreed with that. Let us look at Stephen Harper's policy platform in 2008. Nineteen members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus today supported that. The iconic leader who they have pictures of supported a price on pollution.
Let us fast forward. The last leader the Conservatives, the one the current leader replaced, Erin O'Toole, had a price on pollution as a part of his election platform, and 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election went around the country with that election platform, making it very clear there should be a price on pollution.
There was nothing unique about that. Every political party inside this chamber, the Greens, the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals and, at the time, the Conservatives, campaigned on a price on pollution.
The Conservative Party, with its new shiny leader, talks about axing the tax. The reality is that Conservatives are axing the facts. That is what they are really doing. That is why I challenge the Conservatives, and it is not the first time.
Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who is brave enough or has the courage to have that debate? I would love to have a debate with any Conservative member of Parliament, whether it is at a public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. I look forward to one Conservative member of Parliament standing up today and saying that he or she will have that debate. Those members are going to have a tough time getting their leader to agree to have that public debate. They do not want the facts. They do not want people to understand what the Conservative agenda really is on the issue, and that should be of great concern.
When the leader of the Conservative Party says that they want to axe the tax, it is so misleading. The Conservative members of Parliament know that.
The net disposable income of 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North will go down as a direct result of this bumper-sticker policy that the Conservatives are trying to sell Canadians through deception and misinformation, and they do that consistently. We have to wonder where they get this stuff.
An interesting article came out, and I would like to bring the attention of members to it because it is really important for us to recognize, saying that the past week they got an extremely revealing look behind the curtains of the leader of the Conservative Party's baloney factory; that first of all, he was accepting major donations from oil sands executives, which is interesting to hear, who they knew were fighting hard against the rules and regulations to clean up their operations; but second, he was outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting.
Let us understand who Mash consulting is. Often I talk about the leader of the Conservative Party and his links to MAGA conservativism, the far right. Brian Mulroney said how they had amputated the progressive side of the Conservative Party. Kim Campbell is even harsher in her comments compared to Joe Clark, who says that the Conservative Party has left the progressive nature of its political heritage.
Let me read right from it. It states that he is outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting. That is where the Conservatives are going. It is a firm that has close ties to the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan, but also to companies like Shell and I understand, Canada Proud.
Canadians should be concerned about what they see from today's Conservative Party, which has abandoned any sort of progressive heritage. It is not just me saying this; former Progressive Conservative prime ministers are saying what I am conveying here today.
The Conservative Party reality is far, far right. It is on the extreme. The Conservatives are more concerned about catering to the People's Party's vote than they are to good, sound public policy. Without any hesitation whatsoever, that is why I have no problem in challenging members of the Conservative Party to go to a public school in Ottawa or Winnipeg. I would love the opportunity to see a person from the media and a classroom full of students, and see how the Conservatives justify their irresponsible policy stand on the issue of a price on pollution. If they were to take me up on it, and I suspect they will not, it would be somewhat of an eye opener.
When the Conservatives say that the polls tell them they are right, they have been very successful in deceiving Canadians when it comes to the whole “axe the tax” campaign. They drop completely the rebate portion that increases the disposable incomes of 80% or more of Canadians and at the same time provides an incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. However, the Conservatives have no problem doing that. We saw that today when the leader of the Conservative Party stood and gave all sorts of false information.
I follow immigration very closely. I was the immigration critic and I can say that the Harper years were not good years for immigration, yet he thinks that those were the best years in Canadian history. He was talking about the jobs. In comparison with Stephen Harper's record, we have well over two million new jobs created in eight years compared to just a million jobs in 10 years. It is misinformation. The Conservatives are misleading constantly in social media and in statements in the House.
That is the Conservative Party today, that is the sort of behaviour. I would suggest that the Conservatives are not going to fool Canadians. When the time is here, Canadians will know, and the Conservatives will never be put into a government situation.
1235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:20:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the topic of the day is the price on pollution, the carbon rebate and the carbon tax. I can tell the member opposite that our Prime Minister has had more meetings with the premiers than Stephen Harper ever had. I can guarantee that fact.
That member is from the province of Alberta. On April 1, Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents a litre, which is more than the price on pollution, which was three cents a litre. I am wondering if the Alberta Conservative caucus has told the Premier of Alberta about the damage she is causing to Albertans. I suspect not, because the Conservative Party today is so partisan that it turns a blind eye to anything that comes from the Conservative right to the detriment of Canadians.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 12:44:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom many Canadians have respected as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers for a lot of his efforts and the things he brought in, like Canada's Charter of Rights and the repatriation of the Constitution, at the very least. I think the member undervalues that. It is interesting that he wanted to highlight the past, although he has often criticized me for bringing back some of the disasters of the Stephen Harper era.
Maybe he can justify how it is that Stephen Harper had a mega, multi-billion dollar surplus handed to him, which he converted into a multi-billion dollar deficit. That was before the recession took place. How does he justify that Stephen Harper's government did not balance the budget? Even during the last year of Stephen Harper's government, he had to sell off shares of GM at a huge discount to try to give the impression that he balanced the books.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 12:46:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Alberta deeply shares the love of our province, like many do at home. The reality is that they are stuck between the question of whether the carbon tax is truly hurting their bottom dollar, while also trying to find ways to feed their families.
We can see a kind of hypocrisy in place, particularly with respect to the Conservatives' policy on the carbon tax, which increased on April 1 by three cents at the same time that Danielle Smith, the Conservative Premier of Alberta, increased the gas tax by four cents. That kind of hypocrisy is, I think, something that Canadians are reeling from. It is something they cannot get a path forward on.
I also want to comment on the fact that we have even seen in Alberta the reason Harper had such surpluses in his budget. It was that he weakened oil, for example. The purchase or takeover of Nexen by China was given the green light by the Conservatives at that time in order to balance their budget. They, of course, wanted to tell the Canadian public that they were balancing it, but today we are paying the penalty for that.
It is hard to believe the Conservatives are genuinely addressing the problem of affordability because, I think, it is in a way that Canadians cannot understand. The carbon tax is three cents. That is the Prime Minister's fault, but the leader of the Conservative Party in Alberta increased it by four cents. How does he justify that?
260 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 12:48:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know what is going on today. It might be an effect of the eclipse yesterday or whatever, but I wonder if the hon. member knows that we are in the Canadian House of Commons here, talking about what the federal government is doing. We are both members of opposition parties, but only one of us is actually taking our role seriously to oppose the government. The member votes for the government every single time he has an opportunity.
I will hearken back to the days of Stephen Harper and take a look at this New York Times article, which states that “middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States.” That is from 2014. The article talks about an income survey. It reads, “But other income surveys conducted by government agencies suggest that since 2010”, which was the time of the global economic meltdown, “pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States and is now most likely higher.” That was in 2014. We are in a completely different circumstance now because of the member's party supporting the government.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 4:41:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief speech on today's motion. I thank him profusely.
I have been here for the full day of debate. Let me break down what the supply motion today from the Conservative Party deals with. It posits that we have a carbon tax crisis and suggests that the solution is to bring the premiers to Ottawa, or somewhere, and have a first ministers conference.
I am going to try to address two very large and complex questions in the next 10 minutes. One is the climate crisis, and associated with that, the role of carbon pricing. The other is the nature of our federation, the role of first ministers conferences and what else might work.
The first thing to do is to clearly state that there is no carbon tax crisis. The real crisis, the real urgency, is global warming and climate change. It is almost too late. Time is running out.
We have a very large climate crisis, which threatens all aspects of our lives in Canada. In British Columbia, in four days, 619 people died in the summer of 2021 because of a heat dome. Those were preventable deaths, but 619 people still died, according to the B.C. Coroners Service, which studied those deaths. In the same season, we had wildfires that also compromised our health and threatened lives.
That fall, we had the atmospheric rivers that were responsible for billions of dollars of infrastructure needing to be replaced, which was a huge hit to the economy. We also had the other side of the country dealing with hurricane Fiona, which lifted houses up along the shore of Port aux Basques and deposited them in the ocean. In other words, we have had loss of life, as well as unprecedented fires and floods that threaten lives.
We are seeing a climate crisis that requires us to pull together, yet how do we behave in terms of the question of a first ministers conference? I look at the European Union and at Canada, and I think we have a crisis where, for some reason, we cannot even think like a country. We act like a vulcanized group of federations that do not like each other very much. We have 10 provinces, three territories and one federal government, and we do not have our act together nearly as well as the European Union does.
It has 27 separate sovereign nation-states that are not part of the same country. In fact, they have countries that were, in my parents' lives, at war with each other: Germany and France. The European Union has 27 nation-states and 24 official languages. From the very beginning of addressing the climate crisis, going back to Kyoto in December 1997, the European Union came with a collective pledge, divvied it up among all the nations and started achieving it. Every single European nation more than achieved their Kyoto targets to well below 1990 levels, while Canada continued to soar above 1990 levels.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, the European Union said, “We'd better help Ukraine and make sure it can get electricity, because clearly Putin wants people to freeze.” It took a matter of weeks for the European Union to tell Ukraine it was going to plug Ukraine into its electricity grid. We cannot get Quebec hydroelectricity into Nova Scotia, where the electricity is still generated by coal, because we cannot get Hydro-Québec to work with Emera in Nova Scotia to deliver zero-carbon hydroelectricity. We cannot get our clean electricity from southern Canada up to Nunavut so it can stop burning diesel. Why is this? We do not seem to be able to coordinate very well.
I will look at the history of first ministers conferences. We had a lot in the past, and maybe it is not the best way to get action. If we look back at the Mulroney government, action on acid rain was not taken by pulling everyone together into the same room. Mulroney's genius on this was to get one deal at a time bilaterally. If they were going to shut down the pollution that causes acid rain, they started with the easiest of the provinces, the one that polluted the least but was having a lot of damage. Prince Edward Island was the first bilateral deal between the federal government and a province, Canada-P.E.I.
The last one was the federal government and Ontario, because Ontario's Inco smelter was the single largest point source of acid rain causing pollution in all of North America. One at a time, we got deals with each province all the way across; the Mulroney government then told the Americans that it was coming to them with clean hands. It had already cut its pollution in half, so the Americans should do the same; in that way, they could clean up acid rain.
Mulroney did have a lot of first ministers meetings as well. If we look at his history on this, Pierre Trudeau had five first ministers conferences, some of them historic. Repatriating the Constitution was a rather big first ministers meeting. Former prime minister Mulroney, whom I have mentioned, had 14 first ministers conferences; Jean Chrétien had seven. However, they came to a grinding halt under Stephen Harper, who, over a nine-year period, had two, one in 2008 and one in 2009. The current Prime Minister, over a nine-year period, has held three. It is not a great record in terms of collaboration, but at least there were far more first ministers conferences than under Stephen Harper.
Are first ministers conferences the way to go? How do we do it? What is the best way to get our country to think like a country? Today, April 9, happens to be the 40th anniversary of the day that the House unanimously passed the Canada Health Act. I was reminded of this fact by our former colleague and friend Jane Philpott, who has written a book about how we need to collaborate for health care.
We do not have a carbon tax crisis. I would say we have an affordability crisis right across Canada. There is no question. The carbon tax plays, according to every economist, a minuscule role in the affordability crisis. We have a health crisis. Family doctors are not available to everyone. Is health care a right in this country? That would be a good place to have a collaborative first ministers conference. Could we do that? We certainly have a climate crisis. How do we address that? How can we get ourselves to pull together?
Canadians pull together when the climate crisis hits home. When people are out of their homes because of floods or fires, we know Canadians pull together. We still have no national firefighting force or plan for it. We do not have water bombers sufficient to deal with the summer of climate crisis fires that we can expect to see. There is so much more we could do if we tried to figure out how to get collaboration to occur.
One thing we need to do is agree that electrifying almost everything is one of the best ways to reduce emissions, and the best way to make that reliable is to treat the grid like a battery. Let more people produce. Let more people into the market. Let indigenous nations produce solar and wind. Let coastal communities produce tidal and wind power and sell it into the grid, and when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, pull it out of the grid.
Going back to Europe, Denmark's excess wind is sold to Norway. Norway takes that excess wind power, pumps it up into reservoirs and lets it flow down to create electricity when the sun is not shining in Denmark. This is not rocket science. For God's sake, as Canadians, we know we are the same people and the same communities. We basically love each other, and we have to start acting like a country, because the climate crisis threatens our kids' future in a real way that carbon pricing does not. Carbon pricing, at long last, has gotten some reduction in emissions. However, the truth of the matter is that, for so long, the government in Canada, regardless of Conservative or Liberal, has been so busy trying to build up the fossil fuel industry and throw it tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that we have not confronted the problem.
The problem is big polluters. We need to address that. We need to move off fossil fuels. We need to do it quickly while we still have time to save our future. We need to tax the excess profits. So far this year, Shell has had $28 billion in profits and paid it out to its shareholders. For Heaven's sake, this is not rocket science. We can get this right. Let us move this debate to solutions.
1523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
