- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Timmins—James Bay
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,227.44
- Government Page
- May/9/24 3:14:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the latest reports show that emissions from big oil and gas are up yet again, quelle surprise, and now Imperial Oil is announcing a massive increase in production, thanks to the government's $34-billion freebie known as the TMX pipeline. That will be 900,000 barrels a day of unrefined bitumen emissions threatening coastal indigenous communities. However, the government's going to go one step further and exclude greenhouse gas emissions from environmental assessments.
Will the environment minister just admit that his promise at COP26 for an emissions cap was just a publicity stunt?
97 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/9/24 12:18:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we gave $31 billion to big oil, so companies could take unrefined bitumen; they would not even bother to process it in Canada. It is the dirtiest product on the planet, and we are going to have the taxpayers pay to ship it. Meanwhile, the Conservatives cheer it on and the Liberals say it is going to be good because they will somehow lower our emissions. We cannot continue to burn fossil fuels without killing the future of our children. Those are the facts.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 10:30:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the one area where I agree with the Conservatives is that the carbon tax has not brought down emissions, and it has not brought down emissions because the Liberals believe that the tar sands companies would do the right thing. We had Pathways Alliance and the net-zero plan. We have seen carbon emission decreases across the board, except in big oil where it increases.
As for the carbon tax, Suncor, which was one of the companies that made $78 billion in profits last year, pays one-fourteenth of the carbon tax that “Joe who fills up his gas tank” has to pay. We gave these companies free money, and we continue to give them free money. They are burning our planet and have no intention of doing the right thing. The Liberals were suckers for believing that Rich Kruger, Suncor, Imperial and the rest of the tar sands companies actually cared about burning the planet. I am sorry. I will retract that because we know the Conservatives do not care about burning the planet either.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/8/23 3:24:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the planet is on fire, so what is the difference between the Conservative leader's approach and the Prime Minister's? The Conservative leader is a climate denier, and he would pull us out of the Paris accord; the Prime Minister is simply a denier of his global obligations, which is why we are not going to meet our 2030 targets. The United Nations is pointing out that, under the Prime Minister, Canada is planning a massive increase in oil and gas production. It is no wonder we are the worst country in the G7 for tackling emissions. There has been enough of the denial of facts; where is that emissions cap?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/23 2:49:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Suncor is raking in billions of dollars in profits, yet its corporate rap sheet is a long list of disturbing allegations: environmental damage, workers killed on the job and price fixing at the pump. However, the blockbuster lawsuit in the state of Colorado is new. The Colorado indictment is clear. It states that Suncor knowingly and substantially contributed to the climate crisis through “intentional, reckless and negligent conduct.” This is the big tobacco moment for Suncor.
What will the minister do to hold this company to account and make sure it reduces emissions to protect our children's futures?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:11:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from hurricanes to floods to catastrophic wildfires, Canadians are living the urgency of the climate catastrophe, yet in the boardroom at Suncor the only urgency the members see is making as much money as possible from burning fossil fuels, even as our planet is on fire. We need better from CEOs like Rich Kruger.
Therefore, to the energy minister, when will the government stop giving a free ride to big oil and institute a credible emissions cap that will hold big oil accountable and protect the future of our planet?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 9:27:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we certainly believe that we need to move forward with this legislation. As I said from the get-go, we feel that we are still continuing to pay too much lip service to the corporate interests of the big rail lines and the port authorities. We need to address a number of issues.
For example, the issue of the regulation of greenhouse gas reduction targets for the port authorities is huge. We need to make sure that we have the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act as part of this.
That could be under clause 107(2), where we could make sure that for these huge centres where traffic and transportation are happening, where goods are being moved, we actually have a long-term plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think that would send a very positive message to Canadians.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:50:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the fact that the planet is on fire and the Conservatives do not bother to show up for an emergency debate as they have nothing to say on it is not something that I think we should focus too much on because we have watched this gong show from them for a long time. The issue here in this motion is whether the Liberals will move beyond talk to action. Under the Prime Minister, emissions from oil and gas continue to rise. They are not doing their part. The environment minister allowed an increase of one million barrels a day. They will allow another 800,000 barrels a day under the TMX pipeline.
I am asking whether the government, in the face of this climate catastrophe will say “no more” to increased permits and increased development of oil and gas. That is the question before us.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:49:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada is on fire, and cities across North America are suffering in the smoke of this unprecedented ecological disaster. The Prime Minister promised the world that Canada would finally get serious about capping our oil and gas emissions, but since then, the environment minister has allowed an increase in production of 109 million barrels a day. Meanwhile, big oil is racking up record profits, firing thousands of workers and switching to automation. Therefore, where is this cap on big oil, and why will this environment minister not stand up for Canadian workers and our fragile planet?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:34:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is very important that my hon. colleague be accurate. If he is saying the Conservatives thought they could be just as efficient as the Liberals on emissions, would that not be a sign that they were putting forward a failed plan?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 2:51:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, internal documents show that the government knew the Prime Minister's net-zero reduction plan had net-zero chance of meeting its emissions targets. Well, what a surprise. I remember when the Prime Minister went to COP26 and promised the world that he was bringing in an emissions cap. Then he came back to Canada and promoted massive oil increases through Bay du Nord and TMX.
The planet is on fire and generations of Canadians will pay the price for his inability to deliver a credible plan on a just transition or the emissions cap. Does the Prime Minister not understand this?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:31:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I guess I question some of the assertions he is making, given the $20 billion his government has put into building the TMX pipeline because there was no case for it in the private sector. This is to export oil, which will not be counted as part of Canada's net-zero emissions.
The Canadian Energy Regulator estimates that the amount of oil being taken out of the ground and exported in Canada in 2050 will be equivalent to what it was in 2019. I do not see how the Liberals can talk about an emissions cap when they are actually talking about an increase in production of $1.2 million barrels a day, from a sector whose oil sands are considered to have the highest carbon footprint on the planet.
How does he justify TMX, exports and the fact that the Liberals are looking to have more than a million barrels a day coming out of the ground, right up to 2050?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:07:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions.
My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 2:50:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a “carbon bomb” is any new fossil fuel project that would plunge the planet dangerously past the 1.5°C limit into a climate crisis. That is why the International Energy Agency has said there simply cannot be any more fossil fuel projects, so let us talk about the billions the government has put into the carbon bomb it owns, the TMX pipeline.
It can spare us the talk about an emissions cap. This is about burning an extra million barrels of oil a day. Given what is at risk, why did the environment minister decide to act as a sock puppet for the big oil lobby?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 2:30:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at COP26 the Prime Minister promised the world he would finally put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, but if we look at his new climate scheme, we can scratch that promise because he has given billions to the oil lobby to increase production on the fantasy of capturing carbon. That public money should be invested in energy workers to create a truly Canadian clean-energy revolution. We have the skills to do this, but we have a Prime Minister who has broken every climate promise he has made.
Does he not get that the clock is ticking, the planet is burning and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 3:13:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to assessing the Prime Minister's credibility on the climate crisis, the truth is found in the lobbying registry. Over the last two years, his government rolled out the red carpet for big oil with over 370 meetings. No wonder big oil is not sweating his promise of a tough emissions cap. In fact, representatives told our committee they plan to vastly increase production, and that position is backed by the energy regulator.
This is for the environment minister. What kind of credible cap is there that includes massive increases in oil exports?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
