44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/15/24 12:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Question and comments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 12:57:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I greatly admire my colleague from Lakeland, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. She is always kind and gracious. However, I still have to ask her a rather difficult question, because there is one thing that has been nagging at me when I think about all of the things she has said in committee.
Does she believe in climate change and does she think that the oil and gas industry are currently taking any responsibility when it comes to climate change?
I would like her to give a rather simple answer to those two short questions.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 12:59:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did not hear the member talk about the climate emergency we are facing. The member comes from the province of Alberta where forest fires are already burning. We have been told to expect a potentially worse wildfire season this year.
Like her, I come from western Canada where some of our provinces are facing potentially severe droughts. Workers in the resource sector in our province tell me that they are concerned about the future of their children. They understand we need to find a way to transition to sustainable work for a livable future.
Does the member not think we need to support workers in the face of climate change, which means bold action in terms of supporting the kind of work they can do on a livable planet?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I was 17, I was playing in biker bars, so getting tackled by a Conservative from Alberta is not something that I lose much sleep over. Hopefully, they will not start throwing bottles.
Right now, I am going back to the issue that disinformation, rage politics and relentless falsehoods are being promoted by climate deniers in the midst of a climate catastrophe. The question for me is the issue of climate denial, not only by bots, but also by a government in its belief that, if it just does a little bit here and a little bit there, everything will be fine. That is another form of climate denialism. It is not good enough, not at this time in our history.
The belief on the government's side is that corporations must do their part and that it has Pathways Alliance, with a 2050 plan for net zero. We have seen that Pathways Alliance has met none of its objectives. It has spent millions on disinformation campaigns, but Canada is the only G7 country where emissions continue to rise. If it continues on this path, our emissions will be much higher.
There is a great peer-reviewed study on Pathways Alliance. I encourage everyone to read it, because it shows the greenwashing, disinformation and fundamental lack of honesty that are evident. In the review, it said there was no credible proof of Pathways Alliance's carbon capture claims making any difference, yet it wants us to give them billions in carbon capture. What it is doing with carbon capture is not lowering emissions; it is using carbon capture to pump out more oil and gas and to burn more, while telling us that we have to pay for it.
This shows how they all worked together on this disinformation campaign. This is a peer-reviewed study. I am not just making this up. I read peer-review studies once in a while. It reads, “the degree of strategic coordination shown by the main producers of the oil sands sector reflects a troubling concentration of corporate power for the purposes of political and public influence.” I see my colleagues over there and my colleagues here. It continues by saying that “regulators...should actively consider how to equip themselves to detect and address sector-scale greenwashing.” They say this becomes a really important issue “as liability claims mount regarding the role of fossil fuels organizations in their ‘failure to warn’ of impeding harms due to their products.”
This issue of a “failure to warn” leads us to where this is going to go: to lawsuits. Those are the decisions where we will see some action. We know that Shell has recently been found guilty by a Dutch court of failing to mitigate against climate disaster and constant disinformation. Shell has been ordered to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. That is what courts are doing. The European Court of Human Rights has just moved against big oil.
We have groundbreaking lawsuits. I really like the one in Colorado. I encourage people to check it out, because it names the Canadian giant Suncor and Exxon.
Since 2017, five states, the District of Columbia and 20 municipalities in the U.S. have taken major climate polluters to court for knowingly spreading disinformation. I certainly encourage people to read the California statement. This is the big tobacco moment. This is where the people are able to get back, and there is some great stuff in it. It talks about how Exxon and Shell purposely directed tortuous conduct toward California by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting and supplying fossil fuels with the knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and will continue to cause climate change-related harms, including to the state's industries. It is a campaign of deception and denial of climate change.
That right there is the entire platform of the Conservative opposition, which does everything on bumper stickers. I think we could put its entire environmental strategy, denialism of what the crisis is, on a bumper sticker. It would even fit on a little Austin Mini.
I want to go through some of these issues here, because it is really important that people understand what they knew and the importance of having stuff in place to take them on. Since at least 1988, the American Petroleum Institute participated and led several coalitions to promote disinformation. It has had front groups including the Global Climate Coalition; the Partnership for a Better Energy Future; the Coalition for American Jobs; and I love this one, the Alliance for Climate Strategies. They knew in the late 1960s that they were in a situation where the ice caps would actually start to melt by the year 2000. They knew that in 1968, so they lied. That was the American Petroleum Institute.
In 1980, Esso, a good Canadian company, told its managers of the danger of C02 buildup in the atmosphere and that it could have catastrophic effects. Then they said that there were measures to lower emissions. In 1980, they could have lowered emissions, but it would have cost money. What did Esso do? Esso spent the money on disinformation, on greenwashing and on bogus studies.
In 1982, Exxon had much better science than anyone, and it is right here in the State of California versus the big oil giants. Exxon was warning, from their scientific studies, that climate catastrophe would become evident by the year 2000. That was when we would first start to notice its effects. However, by then it might be too late. All through the nineties, they knew, but what did they do? They decided to pay for bogus studies and disinformation, the kind of stuff that is still being spouted from the front benches of the Conservative Party today. They knew that the results would be catastrophic for the planet.
The other one that is very telling in the California indictment is that, in 1988, Shell did a study of scientific reports that said that, again, the crisis in climate would be noticeable to the public beginning in around the year 2000, which I think most of us agree is when most of began to wonder and worry, and by then, it would possibly be too late. What did Shell do? Shell raised their oil drilling platforms in the ocean by six feet, so that, as the ice caps collapsed, coastal cities were wiped out and South Pacific islands were destroyed, it would be to hell with them; Shell was going to make money.
That is what they did. That is in the indictment. This is like Philip Morris telling kids, “Not only is smoking good, but you have to smoke if you're going to grow up and be healthy.” They knew they were burning the planet.
How does this relate back to Bill C-50? It relates back to this constant pattern of the Conservatives to promote disinformation, bogus claims and hysterical talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to somehow be destroyed if we do anything to support—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 3:07:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives deny climate change, they also deny science. Through the Canada carbon rebate, we make heavy polluters pay and we put more money back in the pockets of Canadian families. Eight out of 10 Canadians, including those in my riding of Oakville, will have more money in their pockets.
On this side of the House, we will continue to make our economy greener. The environment and the economy go hand in hand. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe in science.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 8:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, the member opposite obviously has not read the PBO's report, because it does not say what he is claiming it says. Putting a price on carbon pollution has been a pillar of our climate policy since 2019, and experts around the world, including over 300 economists in an open letter, say it is the cheapest and most effective tool to fight climate change. We know now that, based on the Canadian Climate Institute's recent report, it will account for one-third of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction, so that is pretty significant.
However, make no mistake: Failing to address climate change will make things even more expensive for Canadians. The cost of inaction is stark. If we ignore climate change, by 2025 we could see a $25-billion annual slowdown in our economic growth, and the Canadian Climate Institute estimates that will be 50% of GDP growth.
Are the Conservatives really saying they want to jeopardize the future prosperity of Canada for ideological reasons?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
