Statement by Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – It is extremely disappointing to see the Biden administration weaken its proposed fuel economy regulations in response to pressure from the auto industry. These tailpipe emissions standards are expected to be adopted in Canada, and therefore will significantly affect both countries.
The final rule weakens the Biden administration’s originally proposed tailpipe emissions standards in the years prior to 2030. This weakening will mean higher carbon emissions, reduced EV sales, and less fuel cost savings compared to the originally proposed rule. The original proposed rule was stronger than Canada’s own Electric Vehicle Availability standard before 2030, meaning that our own standard will not safeguard this progress.
The final rule contains loopholes so big you could drive an F-150 truck through them. Weaker emissions requirements for light trucks and vehicles with larger footprints encourage the sale of larger and heavier vehicles. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that the trend towards larger and heavier vehicles has canceled out 40 per cent of fuel efficiency improvements made by all vehicles in the U.S. between 2010 and 2019. We expect that Canada will undergo a regulatory consultation process before aligning with the U.S. EPA rules and we strongly recommend that the Canadian government close these loopholes on this side of the border.
Despite the weakening of the originally proposed rules, their finalization will send a strong market signal that will bring economic benefits to Canada. Canada’s primary auto export market is the United States. Thanks to this rule 69 per cent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. are projected to be electric (battery-electric or plug-in hybrid) by 2032. This reaffirms that investments in Canadian EV production will continue to pay off as the internal combustion engine is regulated out of existence in Canada’s global export markets.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Late on Friday, March 15th, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Andrea Khanjin announced that she has designated York1’s proposed dump site in Dresden, Ontario for a comprehensive Environmental Assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. This is a good first step by the Ontario government.
But it is not enough.
The proposed dump site would be located adjacent to Molly’s Creek – a naturally-fed, spring-origin creek that flows into the nearby Sydenham River. If the dump is built, toxic substances and wastewater runoff from the dump could leach into Molly’s Creek and eventually reach the Sydenham. This would contaminate critical habitats and threaten dozens of Ontario’s rarest threatened and endangered species such as the Spiny softshell turtle and Salamander mussel, pushing them closer towards the brink of extinction. Contamination of the river could also have impacts beyond those indicated for species at risk. Game fish in the river and in the Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie watershed could consume chemical contaminants leached from the dump. Through bioaccumulation, those contaminants could make their way through the ecosystem and into human food.
Residents of Dresden would also be significantly impacted by the proposed development as the site is located just 1 kilometer from town. York1 is proposing the waste processing facility be open 24 hours and day, seven days a week with up to 700 trucks a day driving through the community. As a result from the massive increase in truck traffic, the chemical air quality (e.g. NOx, CO, CO2) and particulate matter pollution would have severe impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people of Dresden and Chatham-Kent.
The presence of unique species at risk in the area and significant risks to air and water quality, coupled with a proposal that is out of scale and incompatible with the local community, leaves only one option moving forward: that the Ontario government pulls the plug on this proposal.
Background Information
York1 Environmental Waste Solutions Ltd filed a proposal with the Ministry of the Environment to revive and expand a dormant landfill on Irish School Road in Dresden, Ontario directly connected to the Eastern Sydenham River.
The subject property has not been used in 50 years as an approved industrial waste processing/transfer site and still holds existing Environmental Compliance Approval’s (ECA) for a 35-hectare waste disposal site with an 8-hectare landfilling area and a 0.8-hectare waste processing site.
The application is for an amendment to the existing waste processing site ECA for a 0.8-hectare waste processing site to be used for the storage, transfer and processing of non-hazardous solid waste. The proposed amendment to the waste processing facility is an increase in the area of the waste processing site to 25 hectares and to allow a maximum daily receiving rate of 6,000 tonnes per day of non-hazardous solid waste and 1,000 tonnes per day of residual waste for final disposal on an annual average basis.
York1 has also purchased 300 acres of surrounding farmland for expansion.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ÉQUITERRE, MOVEMENT: METRO VANCOUVER TRANSIT RIDERS, TTC RIDERS, PEMBINA INSTITUTE
Transit advocates react to joint statement by TransLink, TTC and STM
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People -Environmental Defence and five other public transit rider groups and environmental groups support the call from TransLink, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) to pull forward the forthcoming Permanent Public Transit funding program to this year and supports their call for the development of a sustainable, long-term funding model that considers the full capital and operating costs of providing high quality public transit services.
Many public transit systems are struggling financially and if they haven’t already, they may soon cut service and hike fares. This just makes the problem worse by chasing away more riders and poses the threat of a downward spiral. Without funding for service, this could lead to the decline of public transit in Canada, just when we need it most as a clean and affordable climate solution.
Canada has an alternative. As demonstrated by a recent report from Environmental Defence and Équiterre, supported by modelling from Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, with the right policy interventions, Canada can double public transit ridership by 2035 and cut polluting emissions by 65 million tonnes.
Public transit is beset by a broken funding model. Most public transit systems rely on property taxes and fares to fund day-to-day service, and do not have access to revenue tools that grow with the economy like sales and income taxes. Meanwhile, senior levels of government often only fund capital like procuring a new bus or building Light Rail, but don’t provide any of the operating funding needed to improve day-to-day service. This underfunding of operating costs has created chronic instability, rising fares outpacing inflation and slower ridership growth.
Quotes
“Now is not the time for the federal government to hit the pause button on public transit funding. Canadian cities are tasked with supporting record-setting population growth with public transit infrastructure that has been stretched to its limits. Meanwhile, to confront the housing crisis, communities must dramatically increase housing supply, in particular near high-quality public transit. A renewed, permanent public transit infrastructure program is needed to address the core challenges facing Canadian cities today. By choosing to invest now, Canada can grow public transit ridership, put transit systems back on a sound financial footing, and help fight the housing and climate crisis at the same time,” said Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager at Environmental Defence.
“Toronto’s transit riders urgently need the federal government to accelerate the Permanent Public Transit Fund so that the TTC can order the new subway trains it needs and tackle its growing state-of-good-repair backlog. If federal funding for new subway trains does not materialize soon, riders will experience more delays on the subway. Transit riders deserve better.” said Shelagh Pizey-Allen, Executive Director of TTC Riders, a Toronto-based public transit advocacy group.
“Metro Vancouver has dozens of routes which are desperately overcrowded each and every day. The 49 bus route, for example, moves over 30,000 people per day – at least twice as many as federally funded VIA Rail. Rather than punishing people for choosing climate-friendly travel options, we need to honour their choices by funding it appropriately so that they aren’t constantly left behind by full buses. We need federal capital and operating funding for this critical piece of national infrastructure, and we need it this year,” said Denis Agar, Executive Director of Movement: Metro Vancouver Transit Riders.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
“Canadian businesses report less than global peers about how they affect, and are affected by, climate change. In large part, this is because Canadian regulators lag behind international counterparts when it comes to requiring this information. The new standards proposed by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) for climate reporting confirm Canadian businesses should get ready to meet international norms, but tacitly condone the slow pace from Canadian regulators by delaying the timelines for emissions reporting.
The federal government committed in its 2023 Fall Economic Statement to make climate disclosures mandatory for private companies, and the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) is overdue to regulate disclosure from public companies. They should both take the CSSB’s alignment with global norms as a sign to pick up their pace.
But there is a glaring missing piece. The guidance from Canadian and international standards bodies would have businesses only counting their emissions, not reducing them. This is akin to only counting the leaking holes in a sinking boat without plugging them. Businesses should be reporting on transition plans to reduce emissions. But for that to happen, Canadian policymakers and regulators must start requiring it. Requiring climate transition plans across the economy would ensure businesses have plans to actually help deal with climate change.”
Background:
On June 26, 2023, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) released two Sustainability Disclosure Standards, which are standards to guide companies and financial institutions to report on their climate- and sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
The Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) is developing Canadian Sustainability Disclosure Standards (CSDS) based on the ISSB global baseline – but made two modifications to slow the implementation.
These standards would be voluntary until mandated by government regulation or legislation. The CSSB is not a regulatory body. Federal and/or provincial regulators would decide whether and how to use the standards to require disclosures from Canadian companies.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Alex Ross, Communications Manager, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Environmental Defence is calling for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to reject an application by York1 Environmental Waste Solutions to install and expand a dump site in Dresden, Ontario due to the risk of severe harm to the Sydenham River and species at risk that live in it. The proposed site is directly connected to the Sydenham River, a well documented biological treasure home to at least 33 species at risk. Some of these species are found nowhere else in Canada or remain in only a few other locations globally.
The dump site could cause devastating impacts within the Sydenham River’s eastern branch – its most biodiverse area. The proposed dump site is located adjacent to Molly’s Creek, a naturally-fed, spring-origin creek that flows into the nearby Sydenham River. If the dump is built, toxic substances and wastewater runoff from the dump could leach into Molly’s Creek and eventually transfer into the Sydenham. This will contaminate critical habitats and kill some of Ontario’s rarest species such as the Spiny softshell turtle and Salamander mussel, pushing them closer towards the brink of extinction.
Residents and community leaders in nearby Dresden are strongly opposed to the dump for a number of reasons, including its potential ecological impacts:
Kait Pataki, Dresden resident, said:
“York1’s proposal to put a mega dump one kilometer from the heart of our community is very concerning to me for many reasons, especially the potential harm that would be caused to endangered species. The land where this dump will reside is known to have runoff drain into the creeks and rivers that are home to several species at risk. The lack of policy and ability to enforce such policies to keep these species safe is very alarming. There is no sanction, financial penalty or forfeiture that could possibly mediate the risk of irreversible damage to our ecosystem. Dresden and Chatham-Kent as a whole pride themselves on the amazing natural amenities and wildlife it has to offer, it would be such a disgrace to our community if this dump is approved.”
Steven Peacock and Stefan Premdas, Dresden residents and members of Dresden C.A.R.E.D, said:
“The Ontario government will have broken their own rules if they allow a huge landfill/ transfer facility and an eventual mega dump landfill to be set up 1 kilometer from the town where approximately 2900 tax paying voters live and thrive in this agricultural and ecological paradise. Dresden is home to a wide variety of species at risk that inhabit Molly’s creek and the Sydenham River. If this dump is developed many, if not all, of these species will be wiped out”
Some of the species at risk that would be directly affected by the Dresden dump include:
*The East Sydenham River has the only known population in Canada
Background Information
York1 Environmental Waste Solutions Ltd filed a proposal with the Ministry of the Environment to revive and expand a dormant landfill on Irish School Road in Dresden, Ontario directly connected to the Eastern Sydenham River.
The subject property has not been used in 50 years as an approved industrial waste processing/transfer site and still holds existing Environmental Compliance Approval’s (ECA) for a 35-hectare waste disposal site with an 8-hectare landfilling area and a 0.8-hectare waste processing site.
The application is for an amendment to the existing waste processing site ECA for a 0.8-hectare waste processing site to be used for the storage, transfer and processing of non-hazardous solid waste. The proposed amendment to the waste processing facility is an increase in the area of the waste processing site to 25 hectares and to allow a maximum daily receiving rate of 6,000 tonnes per day of non-hazardous solid waste and 1,000 tonnes per day of residual waste for final disposal on an annual average basis.
York1 has also purchased 300 acres of surrounding farmland for expansion.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – A report launched today by the global think tank InfluenceMap, a non-profit which holds corporations accountable for climate performance, shows Canada’s big banks are failing to deliver on their own climate promises and creating greater financial risks for Canadians as a result. Despite having made commitments to reduce the emissions from their investments and reach net-zero by 2050, Canada’s banks have instead increased their funding in risky oil and gas assets every year since 2020.
The banks are also lobbying against climate-related policies. The Canadian Bankers’ Association (CBA) explicitly advocated against climate-related financial policy in their testimony on the Climate-Aligned Finance Act. In addition, the Business Council of Canada (BCC), an industry group to which the banks belong, has pushed the federal government to label fossil fuels as green under the federal government’s proposed sustainable finance taxonomy (a classification system for green investments). By lobbying the government to give oil and gas an artificial green label, and by advocating against the Climate-Aligned Finance Act, the CBA and BCC are hampering progress on climate change policy. Worsening climate change puts communities, homes and businesses at risk from costly dangerous weather events. Given the banks’ own commitments to reduce climate-related emissions, the banks should use their power to support climate solutions and not work against them. Canada cannot meet its climate targets while its banks are pushing the government to greenwash climate-related and financial-related policy.
“Canadians are being misled. Our banks are promoting themselves as climate champions while lobbying against regulations that would accelerate climate action. People in Canada deserve banks which stay true to their word, and protect our money against the risks of climate change and invest in climate solutions, rather than more fossil fuels. It’s time Canada’s banks follow through on their claims and support ambitious climate-aligned financial regulations.“ – Alex Walker, Manager, Climate Finance
“Why are banks lobbying against climate solutions, when they otherwise say they want to help Canada achieve net-zero? Canada has real climate solutions on the table that would clear up greenwashing, cut pollution, and build a greener economy – this report shows the Big 5 banks lobbying the government to prevent success. The banks are still investing in ways that make climate change worse, and lobbying to slow climate-related policy.
Given the Big 5 banks set their own commitments to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, they should develop climate plans to deliver on these targets, encourage policy to quicken action, and support rules to clear up greenwashing.” – Julie Segal, Senior Manager, Climate Finance
Background
In a recent appearance before the Senate Banking Committee the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA), regarding Bill S-243, argued that Canada’s banks did not need to be regulated. The banks have made voluntary commitments to reach net-zero by 2050 as members of the Net Zero Bankers Alliance (NZBA), and the CBA argues these voluntary commitments can supplant regulation, despite evidence that the banks are not on track to meet these emission reduction targets.
InfluenceMap’s report highlights the banks’ anti-climate lobbying activities contravene the conditions of their membership in the NZBA. To learn more about NZBA commitments see here.
The federal government committed to deliver next steps on a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy in the 2023 Fall Economic Statement, which would be a labelling system for green investments that defines which projects and investments are aligned with limiting long-term global warming to 1.5C.
The banks’ financing of oil, gas, and coal, as well as their related policies, contravene the net-zero pathways from energy economists and climate scientists from the IEA and IPCC.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Sixteen environmental groups sent an open letter to Energy and Natural Resources Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, calling for the continuation of the very successful Greener Homes Grant Program. Another letter, written by Green Communities Canada, was sent to the Federal Minister of Energy making the same request.
Over the short life of this program, more than 500,000 homeowners signed up to take advantage of $5,000 grants used for the purchase and installation of heat pumps as well as a $600 grant for home energy audits.
“The Greener Homes grant has been extremely successful. Why would the government be ending it now with little notice?” said Keith Brooks, Programs Director, at Environmental Defence. “Canadians are just now learning about heat pumps, the industry is booming, yet the government is pulling the rug out? It just doesn’t make sense.”
The termination of this successful program comes during a global energy transition when many homeowners are switching from polluting gas furnaces to cheaper and cleaner heat pumps. Heat pumps have been proven to be more cost-effective and more efficient than gas furnaces over the years, hence their popularity.
“Thanks to the Greener Homes Grant, Canada is on a roll in transitioning from polluting gas furnaces to cleaner and more affordable electric heat pumps,” said Lana Goldberg, Safe Cities Climate Campaigner at Stand.earth. “The federal government ought to continue robustly supporting this momentum, ensuring a decrease in stubbornly high and rising building emissions, while lowering people’s energy bills and making homes safer.”
The closing of this program will introduce new challenges for many Canadians. It will be challenging for the small and medium businesses in the HVAC & Energy Monitoring Industry that created 75,000 jobs in just a few years. It will also be challenging for consumers who were committing to switching to a heat pump and were considering further efficiency upgrades to their homes.
“Cities and communities are doing their part to support the high demand for retrofits. Federal incentives must stay consistent and predictable for communities to realize the climate and economic benefits of healthy, low-carbon buildings,” said Bryan Purcell, Vice-President for Policy and Programs at The Atmospheric Fund.
The groups are calling on the Federal government to not only continue this program but to also expand the incentives to retrofit low-income homes. The Federal government must properly fund this program so that Canadians can make the transition to affordable energy in the form of electric heat pumps that increase home energy efficiency in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way.
350.org
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)
Canadian Health Association for Sustainability and Equity (CHASE)
Citizens’ Climate International
Clean Air Partnership
Climate Action for Lifelong Learners (CALL)
Conservation Council of New Brunswick
Greenpeace Canada
Halton Action for Climate Emergency Now (HACEN)
Halton Hills Climate Action
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Ontario Climate Emergency Campaign (OCEC)
Stand.earth
The Atmospheric Fund
Windsor-Essex On Watch (WOW)
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Moving trucks to Hwy 407 would tackle 401 congestion faster – and $6 billion cheaper – than the Highway 413 Scheme
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – This morning Ontario’s Official Opposition introduced a motion, that if passed by the legislative assembly and adopted, would demolish the Ontario government’s only real public pretext for pushing ahead with the $10 billion dollar “Highway 413” scheme that paves swathes of the Greenbelt.
The Opposition bill is proposing to reduce tolls on the 407 ETR for commercial truckers which would help to reduce congestion on the slower-moving Highway 401. According to an expert report by global transportation analysts Euonomia, the transportation benefits would be enormous: despite costing $6 billion dollars less than the 413 scheme, this plan would shift 12,000 to 21,000 trucks a day off Highway 401, and slash journey times for truck traffic passing through the GTA by approximately 80 minutes.
After a decade of legal wrangling and disruptive construction, the benefits of this policy would be felt almost immediately.
The Official Opposition plan would also avoid the massive environmental harms associated with carving a multi-lane mega-highway through the Greenbelt and the most pristine remaining parts of Peel Region’s contested countryside. Highway 413 would also pave 2400 acres of Greenbelt farmland while inducing more car-dependent warehouse and residential sprawl – particularly in some of Ontario’s best farmland north of Brampton.
“If the government votes for the motion, as everyone from Ontario’s truckers to environmental organizations agree on, then it demolishes the business case for the 413 scheme that this government continues to spend a great deal of political capital on. On the other hand, if the government votes against the opposition motion that would deliver all the benefits it says it wants from 413 at a fraction of the cost, this will prove that Highway 413 was never about transportation. And confirms that 413 is instead a $10 billion project for funding sprawl.”- Phil Pothen, Land Use and Land Development Program Manager, Environmental Defence
The full report on the impact of lowering tolls on Highway 407 is available here.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Advocates highlight new polling that shows 4 out of 5 people living in Canada want action on PFAS
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Yesterday, environmentalists, firefighters, and Northern Indigenous health experts met with federal decision makers to demand action on toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” The advocates came to Parliament Hill with new polling showing that 4 out of 5 people living in Canada want action on PFAS. The response was supportive: decision makers were concerned to learn more about the health and environmental impacts of this toxic class of chemicals.
For years, PFAS have been added to hundreds if not thousands of products, including cookware, textiles, cosmetics, firefighting gear and foam, and intimate personal care products, like menstrual products and diapers. But the toxic exposure doesn’t end there. These forever chemicals go on to contaminate our water and environment.
PFAS have been linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including: asthma, low/high infant birth weight, early menopause, immune suppression, thyroid disease, adult cancers (including testicular and kidney) and childhood leukemia, high cholesterol, prediabetes and fatty liver.
Firefighters, scientists and environmentalists agree: the federal government must list the entire class of PFAS as toxic under Canada’s Environmental Protection Act, and strengthen proposed regulations to ban PFAS in products.
Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager, Toxics at Environmental Defence said:
“More than 98 per cent of us already have PFAS in our blood—substances with known ties to thyroid disease, asthma and an array of cancers. But PFAS lobbyists show callous disregard for our health by continuing to stand in the way of necessary regulations. People living in Canada cannot afford more delays. The longer we wait to phase out PFAS, the larger this toxic legacy becomes.”
Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Program Director, Healthy Communities Program at Ecojustice said:
“The world’s leading scientists on PFAS recommend a class-based approach to regulating PFAS. Canada must ensure all PFAS are included in the class and regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Without a comprehensive regulatory approach, Canada will continue to be a dumping ground for unregulated chemicals, and our communities, workers and healthcare system will pay the price.”
Lucy Grey, Public Health Inuit Research Advisor said:
“Accessing safe and uncontaminated country food is a matter of Inuit rights. We are disproportionately impacted by PFAS by consuming country food, which are central to our culture and nutrition. Wildlife health is directly connected to Inuit health and well-being. Our communities should be chemical free. The government must take every precautionary measure to protect the exceptional quality of country food and protect us from the harms of PFAS.”
Quincy Emmons, Firefighter said:
“More firefighters die from PFAS exposure than they do from fighting actual fires. The gear we wear and firefighting foams we use are full of PFAS, meaning we are exposed to these toxic “forever chemicals” even more than other people. Enough is enough. Firefighters choose to risk their lives everyday to protect our communities. Regulating PFAS is the number one way Canada can return the favour.”
Larissa Holman, Director of Science and Policy, Ottawa Riverkeeper said:
“The evidence of contamination is all around us, PFAS have been found in many watersways, including right here, in the Ottawa River. These chemicals do not break down in the environment and can bioaccumulate in fish and wildlife, raising concerns about the potential long-term consequences that these persistent chemicals may have on aquatic ecosystems and the people who depend on them. We cannot expect municipalities to deal with this growing contamination at water treatment plants. To drive meaningful change Federal regulation needs to provide protection to source water and the ecosystems these waters support.”
Firefighters and Environemtal Defence’s Associate Director, Ashley Wallis, on Parliament Hill. (From left to right: Firefighters Marc-André Gosselin, Luc Daigneault, Sébastien Massé, André Delorme, Andrew Ellis, Evan Carter; Genna McMillan, VP International Association of Firefighters Local 162; Ashley Wallis, Associate Director, Environmental Defence)Environmentalists, firefighters, and Northern Indigenous health experts hold a press conference on Parliament Hill. (From left to right: Dr. Joy Hataley, M.D. FPA; Larissa Holman, Director of Science and Policy, Ottawa Riverkeeper; Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics, Environmental Defence; Lucy Grey, Public Health Inuit Research Advisor; Quincy Emmons, Firefighter; Dr. David Hyndman, Chief Science Officer, FireRein; Neil McMillan, Director of Science and Research, International Association of Firefighters; Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Program Director – Healthy Communities, Ecojustice)Environmentalists, firefighters, and Northern Indigenous health experts came together on Parliament Hill to demand action on “forever chemicals.” (From left to right: Sandra Hamamoto, International Association of Firefighters; Neil McMillan, Director of Science and Research, International Association of Firefighters; Evan Carter, Firefighter; Genna McMillan, VP International Association of Firefighters Local 162; André Delorme, Firefighter; Quincy Emmons, Firefighter; Sébastien Massé, Firefighter; Dr. Joy Hataley, M.D. FPA; Marc-André Gosselin, Firefighter; Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics, Environmental Defence; Dr. Elaine MacDonald, Program Director – Healthy Communities, Ecojustice; Dr. David Hyndman, Chief Science Officer, FireRein)Firefighter Quincy Emmons meets with Member of Parliament, Ms. Sherry Romanado to discuss the dangers of toxic PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.”Environmentalists, firefighters, and Northern Indigenous health experts met with federal decision makers to advocate for action on toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. (From left to right: Mr. Yasir Naqvi, MP; Dr. David Hyndman, Chief Science Officer, FireRein; Firefighter Quincy Emmons; Mr . Francis Scarpaleggia, MP; Genna McMillan, VP International Association of Firefighters Local 162; Evan Carter, Firefighter; Lucy Grey, Public Health Inuit Research Advisor; Neil McMillan, Director of Science and Research, International Association of Firefighters; Dr. Joy Hataley, M.D. FPA; Sandra Hamamoto, International Association of Firefighters; Mr. Richard Cannings, MP; Ms. Sherry Romanado, MP; Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager for Toxics, Environmental Defence)
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement by Stephen Legault, Senior Manager, Alberta Energy Transition, Environmental Defence, Calling on the Alberta Government to Address the Real Threat to Alberta’s Landscapes and Climate: Oil, Gas and Coal
Canmore | Traditional territories of the Treaty 7 Nations – We’re disappointed, but not surprised by Premier Danielle Smith’s decision to single out clean, renewable energy for additional restrictions not applied to oil, gas, and tar sands energy projects. The Premier had made it very clear in past statements that she is biased against renewable energy, and instead favours projects that cause pollution, limit Alberta’s future economic growth, and contribute to global climate change.
Today’s announcement demonstrates a profound lack of foresight by the Premier, failing to recognize that global market forces have already shifted to favour clean, inexpensive renewable energy. Placing restrictions on solar, wind, and geothermal power that don’t apply to climate change causing oil and gas development will put Alberta’s burgeoning renewable energy industry at risk, and cost Albertans more for their energy. Solar and wind power are the least expensive sources of power in the province’s energy mix, and restricting their growth will cost Albertans money when they can least afford it.
Environmental Defence is calling on the province to address the real blight on Alberta’s landscape, the tens of thousands of oil and gas wells, new proposed coal mines and tar sands operations, along with the liabilities they present to the Alberta taxpayer, and the lost opportunities for Alberta renewable energy businesses to thrive in a post-carbon global economy.
Background Information
Premier Smith’s decision to place a moratorium on Alberta’s renewable energy sector, while allowing industry players in the oil and gas business to continue to develop greenhouse gas (GHG) producing projects, demonstrates a government bias against wind, solar and geothermal energy production in Alberta. The outcome of the Alberta Utility Commissions (AUC) review, expected Feb 29th, must demonstrate fairness across the energy industry to be credible.
Wind and solar energy are the least expensive sources of energy in Canada. The cost of solar power has been reduced by 90 per cent over the past 10 years. Wind related costs have fallen 70 per cent over the same time. Because the “feedstock” for both wind and solar are free, the cost of these energy sources decreases the more that are built.
Alberta, and Canada cannot meet our global commitments to the Paris Accord and Alberta’s own net-zero pledge unless we make a massive shift from fossil fuels to renewable power. Doing that in a way that protects other interests, such as agriculture, wildlife, jobs, and community well-being is key to our success.
In 2023, Alberta led the country in renewable energy investment. Those projects had been in the regulatory process long before the August 14, 2023 decision to freeze renewable energy projects. Projects that would have been submitted for review will now be delayed, meaning investments, jobs, and much needed renewable energy sources will be pushed further into 2024, 2005 and beyond.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca
New Report: Expanding Public Transit Service Can Double Ridership and Cut Emissions by 65 Million Tonnes
“Putting Wheels on the Bus” report outlines recommendations to federal policymakers to unlock public transit’s potential as a climate solution
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – A new report, titled “Putting Wheels on the Bus” from Environmental Defence and Équiterre, supported by modelling conducted by Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors and Leading Mobility finds that Canada can double public transit ridership by 2035 if federal and provincial governments step up investments in expanding transit service hours and frequency, implement bus lanes and improve urban planning to encourage more housing density near transit.
Combined with electrification of bus fleets, the report finds that with these measures, Canada can reduce carbon emissions by sixty-five million tonnes by 2035, if investments begin now. Sixty-five million tonnes over the period 2024-2035 is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions produced by 20 million cars.
The policy interventions proposed in the report can be achieved by careful design of the planned federal Permanent Public Transit Fund and negotiated infrastructure funding agreements with provinces, territories, and cities, where the federal government would assume its traditional 40 per cent cost-share.
The report highlights that public transit systems across Canada are currently not allowed to use federal public transit funding to add service hours or increase service frequency, despite these measures being the most important drivers of ridership growth and emissions reductions. Federal funding is also not allowed to be used towards making fares more affordable, despite Canada’s cost-of-living crisis.
Based on public transit fleet data obtained from the Canadian Urban Transit Association, the report finds that while municipalities have expanded their bus fleets with federal capital funding, they do not have the operating funding they need to actually put those bigger fleets into service. There are an estimated 1,700 buses gathering dust in garages across the country that could be in service if municipalities had the money to hire drivers and run them.
The modelling by Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors and Leading Mobility found that increasing subsidies for public transit operations allows transit systems to increase service levels, and this is a particularly important way of reducing carbon emissions by incentivizing people to choose public transit over cars. The study found that the largest greenhouse gas reductions from public transit came from Land Use Effects. This refers to the ability of increased transit service to enable improved urban planning and land use, such as less city space needing to be devoted to parking. This allows people to make shorter, car-free trips to reach their destinations and live closer to jobs and amenities. The study highlighted the importance of pairing public transit investments with zoning policy changes that enable cities to build more housing near frequent transit service, because restrictive zoning policies can limit these benefits.
Public transit systems in Canada are at a turning point, with many still struggling financially because of reduced ridership due to the pandemic. This has led many to cut services and hike fares. Yet, these cuts drive an even greater reduction in ridership, which inevitably lead to even more service cuts and fare increases – a vicious cycle known as the ‘downward spiral’.
The report highlights that while Canada’s climate plan has targets to increase zero-emission vehicle adoption, it has no targets to increase public and active transportation use or to reduce the total number of kilometres traveled by car. The report authors recommend that beyond setting new goals, federal and provincial governments should also create long term, reliable operating funding streams for public transit systems. This would allow ridership to recover and grow while enabling Canada to meet its climate ambitions with abundant public transit.
Quotes
“Canada’s current public transit strategy is like a bus without wheels. Funding capital projects but not operations is not working to actually improve day-to-day service for millions of Canadians who rely on public transit. This policy choice is not working to shift people who are currently driving onto public transit. If the federal government intends on actually achieving meaningful emissions reductions with public transit, it must begin funding transit operations and encourage provinces to get on board too,” said Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager at Environmental Defence.
“We cannot allow a ‘downward spiral’ to erode public transit in Canada, just when we need it the most as a clean and affordable climate solution. This report demonstrates that we have an alternative: we can choose to invest in public transit, grow ridership and adapt to new mobility patterns by providing more reliable, convenient and frequent service that works more equitably for everyone,” said Anne-Catherine Pilon, Mobility Analyst, Équiterre.
“This important, new report reinforces and builds on the new regional transit plan that Metro Vancouver leaders put in place in 2022 recognizing that record-setting population growth, the need to increase housing density and affordability and to meet critical GHG reduction targets will require massive increases in transit service over the next decade. Our Access for Everyone Plan calls for a 114 per cent increase in Metro Vancouver’s transit over the next decade, mainly through an improved and expanded bus network. However, this plan is not achievable without a much faster and more substantive response from the federal government. The new Permanent Transit Fund is a giant step in the right direction, but its roll out and scope does not match the scale of the challenges we are facing. We need to get started now!” said Brad West, Chair of TransLink’s Mayors’ Council and Mayor of Port Coquitlam, Metro Vancouver’s transportation authority.
“Investing in public transit is a win-win for affordability and climate. The federal government has an opportunity to reduce household costs and greenhouse gas emissions by accelerating the Permanent Public Transit Fund and making it available for transit operating budgets. More frequent and affordable service will make public transit a viable choice for more people.” said Shelagh Pizey-Allen, Executive Director of TTC Riders, a Toronto-based public transit advocacy group.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
ÉQUITERRE: Since 1993, Équiterre has been helping to find solutions, transform social norms and encourage ambitious public policies through research, support, education, mobilization and awareness building initiatives. This progress is helping to establish new principles for how we feed ourselves, how we get around and how we produce and consume, that are designed for our communities, respectful of our ecosystems, in line with social justice and of course, low in carbon.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
BLUE GREEN CANADA, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES, CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS, CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CANADA, THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, ECOJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, ÉQUITERRE, IRON + EARTH, PEMBINA INSTITUTE, 350.org
In a letter sent earlier today, twelve major climate and labour organizations called on Prime Minister Trudeau, Natural Resources Minister Wilkinson, and all parties’ House Leaders to expedite the passage of Bill C-50, the Sustainable Jobs Act, following months of delays.
Despite assurances that the legislation is a government priority, it has not yet been scheduled for a third reading. With only a limited number of sitting weeks left in Parliament before the Summer break, supporters of the Bill are worried that this delay will prevent it from receiving Royal Assent in time to begin the work mandated by the Bill before the next election.
“It’s time for the government to fulfill its 2019 promise. The impacts of the energy transition are already being felt across the country. Waiting any longer could be too late for some workers and their families. Members of Parliament must put politics aside and pass this important legislation.” Aliénor Rougeot, Program Manager, Climate and Energy, Environmental Defence
“This Bill is important because it empowers workers to shape their future, ensuring that as Canada transitions to a low-carbon economy and creates new jobs, these jobs are high-quality and sustainable.” Christine Jones, Industrial Decarbonization Program Manager, Blue Green Canada
“Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.” Chris Severson-Baker, Executive Director, Pembina Institute
“The world is quickly moving towards renewable energy sources and clean technologies while decreasing demand for oil and gas. We need to ensure workers, families and communities in Canada aren’t left behind. The Sustainable Jobs Act will help make sure communities are supported through this transition. We’re calling on all parties to get Bill C-50 across the finish line, with improvements, when MPs return to Ottawa next week.” Tom Green, Senior Climate Policy Adviser, David Suzuki Foundation
“The transition to renewable energy, which is moving quickly all over the world, must benefit workers and communities in Canada as well, leaving no one behind. Bill C-50 is a litmus test of Canada’s willingness to plan and organize the necessary transformation of our economy. It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there’s absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now – not in 2050.” Andréanne Brazeau, Analyst, Climate Policy, Équiterre
Background:
Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, was tabled in Parliament in June 2023. The Bill was amended in Committee but has not yet passed through the House, despite being initially scheduled to do so in December.
The process is being hampered by the addition of over two hundred additional amendments for Report Stage, the overwhelming majority of which were frivolous amendments proposed by Members of the Conservative Party. Voting on all amendments could take up two days of Parliamentary time.
Bill C-50 provides a structure to align Canada’s approach to skills development, job creation and regional economic development with its climate goals.
The legislation was amended in Committee late last year to better integrate Canada’s legislated climate targets, enhance transparency and accountability mechanisms, and ensure labour, environmental and Indigenous participation in the Council.
The letter is addressed to Prime Minister Trudeau, Natural Resources Minister Wilkinson, and all parties’ House leaders, who play an important role in setting the agenda for Parliament.
The letter was endorsed by a coalition of leading climate and labour organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, Environmental Defence, Climate Action Network – Réseau Action Climat, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 350 Canada, Équiterre, Blue Green Canada, Pembina Institute, Ecojustice, Iron and Earth, the Council of Canadians and the David Suzuki Foundation.
2,800 individual Canadians also sent letters to their Member of Parliament, Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Wilkinson this month requesting a swift passage of Bill C-50.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Alex Ross, Environmental Defence, Communications Manager, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Environmental Defence denounces The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act by the Ontario government that would overturn the December 2023 decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to end the subsidy for Enbridge to install gas lines in new housing developments.
This legislation would be bad for new homeowners, bad for existing gas customers, and bad for the environment. The only one that benefits is Enbridge gas. This is all too similar to the Greenbelt scandal: the government is legislating against the public good in the services of a few private interests, namely Enbridge and housing developers.
This legislation also sets a dangerous precedent: this is the first time any government of Ontario has overruled a decision by the independent Ontario Energy Board. The board’s mandate is to keep energy costs down and that’s what drove this decision.
While many jurisdictions are moving to ban gas hook ups in new homes, this ruling simply said that existing gas users should no longer subsidize gas hook ups, prompting builders to ask whether they should put gas in new homes. The alternative being installing heat pumps instead, which the Board found would save money for homeowners.
Expanding the scope of projects exempted from OEB oversight is another gift by the provincial government to Enbridge and Ontario’s housing developers at the expense of current gas customers who will be subsidising these expansions with no recourse. This government overreach also flies in the face of the need to keep housing affordable by providing homeowners with energy efficient heating solutions such as heat pumps that cost substantially less to operate in the long term than natural gas.
We call on the Ontario government to stop its plan to pass this legislation.
Additional Information:
In addition to undoing the OEB’s December 21 decision, The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act also proposes to change the Leave to Construct process that included oversight by the OEB for any pipeline project over $2 million or above. Under the proposed legislation, the provincial government is proposing to exempt pipeline projects that cost between $2 million and $10 million from OEB oversight. In other words, the OEB will no longer be determining if applications for pipelines up to $10 million are in the public’s interest.
It appears that the new legislation would also pre-emptively override another OEB decision about a project in the Windsor area. The project would require at least a $150 million subsidy from existing gas customers. The subsidy would mainly benefit gas power plant expansions and fossil-fuel heated greenhouses. Environmental Defence and all ratepayer intervenors opposed the subsidy and asked the OEB to disallow it.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – This week, 68 organizations across Ontario expressed their strong opposition to a proposal from Ontario’s Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to amend regulations under the provincial Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).
MECP claims that these changes will improve implementation of the legislation, however, this is only true if you think better implementation of species protection legislation involves making it weaker. The proposed changes will speed up development approvals and reduce costs for developers engaging in harmful activities that impact Ontario’s most vulnerable plant and animal species.
With over 230 species at risk and counting, Ontario’s rarest and most vulnerable plants and animals require more protection, not less. Unfortunately, MECP’s latest proposal will further dismantle the ESA and undermine species protection in the following ways:
Reduce habitat protection for the endangered Redside Dace minnow;
Permit disregard of reports of Butternut tree health experts before allowing development activities to proceed that will harm this endangered species and its habitat;
Subject all newly listed at-risk species to the harmful impacts of activities authorized through exemptions; and
Expand the exemptions for early mineral exploration, despite the ministry’s failure to inspect or enforce compliance with current rules and the lack of any system to track collective impacts incurred to date.
The proposed changes demonstrate the Government of Ontario’s persistence in prioritizing harmful projects over protection of even the very rarest of species and ecosystems. For example, the Redside Dace and Butternut are just two of many species at risk that would be impacted by the proposed giant Highway 413. The only reasonable explanation for these proposed changes is that they would reduce the environmental protection standards required if the Highway were to be built.
“Ontario’s Endangered Species Act has been weakened throughout the years through policy changes, exemptions and poor implementation. These proposed changes will further demolish the act and create more loopholes for developers to easily harm species at risk and their habitats. The MECP’s proposal makes clear that the Ontario government cares little about the unpayable costs of biodiversity loss. Gutting remaining protections is particularly irresponsible given the current global biodiversity crisis. If we have any hope in halting and reversing biodiversity loss, the government should not proceed with these recommendations,” said Rebecca Kolarich, Biodiversity and Nature Manager at Environmental Defence.
“Once again, the government is unraveling environmental protections to serve the interests of developers. Across the board, the proposed changes will weaken the level of protection for species at risk. The overall direction is to speed up approvals and reduce costs for those who want to undertake activities that will harm Ontario’s most vulnerable plants and animals,” said Dr. Anne Bell, Director of Conservation and Education at Ontario Nature.
“It’s tragic to see these proposed exemptions to protections for at-risk species come from the very Ministry that is meant to lead the way in ensuring their conservation and recovery. The changes have nothing to do with science or ecological knowledge but instead seem laser-targeted to remove ‘inconveniences’ to developers at the expense of wildlife and the waters, forest and grasslands that support them,” said Katie Krelove, Ontario Campaigner at Wilderness Committee.
“Brick by brick, we’re witnessing the provincial government dismantle the Endangered Species Act, as brick by brick new developments arise in areas that used to be homes for wildlife. This government continues to prioritize industrial resource extraction and development over all other values,” said Rachel Plotkin, Boreal Project Manager at David Suzuki Foundation.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
ABOUT ONTARIO NATURE (ontarionature.org): Ontario Nature is a charitable organization that has been working to protect Ontario’s wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education and public engagement since 1931.
ABOUT THE DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION (davidsuzuki.org): The David Suzuki Foundation is a national, non-profit organization that uses evidence-based research, education and policy analysis to conserve and protect the natural environment, and help create a sustainable Canada.
ABOUT WILDERNESS COMMITTEE (wildernesscommittee.org): Wilderness Committee is a national charity dedicated to preserving wilderness, protecting wildlife, defending parks, safeguarding public resources and fighting for a healthy climate.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement by Phil Pothen, Land Use and Land Development Program Manager
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Despite its name, the Ontario government’s “Get It Done Act” would actually make it harder to fix Ontario’s housing shortage, while failing to tackle the tolls on the 407 that really do stand in the way of a faster, cheaper fix to traffic problems.
Kneecapping Efforts to Fix the Housing Shortage
The most troubling and significant feature of the bill is the re-imposition of many of the corrupt urban boundary expansions that are at the heart of the sprawl and land speculation scandal. These expansions were rejected by regional governments, like Halton Region and Waterloo Region, because they already had a large supply of rural land designated for development sitting unused. Before 2022, the GTHA alone already had more than 350 km2 of designated development land that had been sitting unbuilt for many years.
Altering official plans to consume even more land over the next 30 yearswould make development much less labour and materials efficient, making it harder –not easier– to speed up home construction and drive down housing costs. While the government defends these back-door expansions as “municipally-requested”, the “requests” referred to come from the same lower-tier Mayors who were originally outvoted at regional councils like Halton’s.
The “Get It Done Act” repackages the same corrupt decisions at the heart of last year’s corruption scandals. It would let rural sprawl developers steal the construction that’s needed for efficient lower-cost housing in regional centres, simply because they’ve managed to lure the Mayor of some smaller nearby town into acting as a human fig-leaf.
Allowing Expropriations for Mega-Highways Before Impact Assessment
While on the surface it might look like a minor tweak to definitions, the proposed amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act is a major red flag. They suggest the government is gearing up to take advantage of a temporary gap in the federal impact assessment of Highway 413 that could occur if there are delays in introducing an amended federal Impact Assessment Act.
This language appears to be designed to hinder court challenges that would prevent Ontario from expropriating land and destroying endangered species habitats quickly enough to take advantage of such a gap.
Silver Linings: Victory in Hamilton and Empty Gestures on Carbon Pricing
The closest thing to good news regarding the “Get It Done Act” is what the proposed law does not do.
While the proposed law would reinstate –and in some cases worsen– forced boundary expansions in some regions with dual-tier governments, it appears to leave intact the fixed urban boundary and aggressive focus on infill housing which are the centerpiece of the City of Hamilton’s groundbreaking Official Plan.
The government’s “Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024”, which is part of this bill, also accomplishes nothing except a headline. It will have no impact on carbon pricing in Ontario now or in the future. Elected officials need to stop mischaracterizing and fighting about carbon pricing and work to reduce emissions. We will surely be reminded again this summer that the climate crisis is acute.
The Only Path Forward
From the business pages of the Toronto Star, to analysis by transportation experts and experts of the Ontario government’s own hand-picked Housing Task Force, there is now a single clear path to actually “getting it done” when it comes to traffic congestion and the housing crisis. Ontario must channel almost all of its construction and infrastructure investment into supporting denser, lower-cost housing types in existing built up areas that need extra density to end car-dependency and make transit cost-effective. Only then will municipalities be able to solve the traffic problem and increase the housing supply fast enough to keep up with demand. Ontario cannot afford to waste construction on the highway mega-projects and labour-wasting McMansion sprawl that will be caused by the “Get It Done Act”.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Carolyn Townend, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – The changes to the Clean Electricity Regulations that are being contemplated will almost certainly weaken the regulations and take us further away from the Prime Minister’s commitment to a net-zero electricity sector by 2035. These changes, if adopted, will allow more gas plants to burn more gas further into the future.
We urge the government to strengthen the regulations, rather than weaken them. In particular, the federal government must hold the line on the end of life clause and the date that this clause comes into effect. It is unacceptable to allow gas plants built in 2026 to operate until 2045, or later, completely unmitigated. We are also concerned that the government is considering weakening the standard itself and including offsets.
The current proposal, if adopted, will come up short of the Prime Minister’s net-zero electricity commitment, made at COP 26 in 2021. Provinces and project proponents have been provided with fair notice on a gas phase-out. Continuing to sink costs into plants that are not going to be able to operate come 2035 is not only short-sighted but will come at significant costs to electricity users. This is unfortunately the case in Ontario, where the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is moving forward with contracting gas plants that will not be in service until 2027 or 2028, knowing full well that they would only be able to operate in a very limited manner after 2035.
Clean electricity is an absolutely crucial element of a credible climate strategy. The push to electrify transportation, home heating and industry depends on the grid being decarbonized. And few countries are in a better position to decarbonize their electricity systems than Canada, thanks to an abundance of existing hydro and plentiful wind and solar resources.
The government must finalize the regulations without further delay. The electricity sector is projected to deliver deep emissions cuts in Canada’s Emissions Reductions Plan. If the government doesn’t get this policy right, and get it in place as soon as possible, those emissions reductions will not be realized, and Canada will miss yet another climate target.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement by Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – We welcome the tabling of a new Private Member’s Bill C-383, an Act to prohibit the export of thermal coal from Canada. If passed, this new law would finally put an end to the millions of tonnes of coal – the world’s dirtiest and deadliest fossil fuel – that are shipped overseas from Canada’ west coast every year.
This Private Member’s Bill is only necessary because the federal government has failed to keep its own promise. Back in 2021, the federal government committed to ending the export of thermal coal before 2030. Years later, it has still made no progress – and Canadian ports continue to ship coal.
Not only does burning coal contribute massively to rising greenhouse gas emissions, it also endangers people’s health. Air pollutants from coal plants are linked to chronic heart and respiratory disease, and a host of acute ailments.
Despite deeming coal-fired power plants too dangerous for the health of people here, Canada continues to export millions of tonnes of thermal coal each year, including American coal, for sale in other countries.
Canada prides itself on advancing a thermal coal phase out. If we aren’t okay with burning coal in Canada, we shouldn’t feed coal consumption overseas. This new bill would finally put coal in the past – where it belongs.
Background Information
The bill was put forward yesterday by Member of Parliament Laurel Collins. It will need to be debated in Parliament before moving through the legislative process.
Thermal coal, which refers to coal used to produce electricity, produces dangerous amounts of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The process of mining, transporting, and burning coal wreaks havoc on the environment, the climate and human health.
According to Government of Canada data, in 2022 Canada exported over 18 million tonnes of Canadian and American thermal coal. When burnt, that amount of coal would produce 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of 8.7 million cars.
As a result of 30 years of campaigning by Indigenous, environmental and health groups, governments in Canada have taken important steps to phase out the use of thermal coal here at home. Many provinces, like Ontario and Alberta, have shut down all of their coal-fired power plants. The Government of Canada implemented rules to ensure other provinces do the same. In 2021, the federal government introduced a policy to end mining for thermal coal. More information is available here.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact: Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We applaud the resolution passed unanimously today by Hamilton City Council to support the decision of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to end the subsidy for methane gas pipelines in new residential developments and reduce spending on gas pipelines generally.
It is good to see municipalities like Hamilton taking a stand against Enbridge’s campaign to earn more profit at the expense of the customers and the climate. We hope the Ontario government will listen and back away from its plan to legislate against this decision.
The OEB is an economic regulator and its primary mandate is to keep energy costs low. The OEB was aiming to reduce costs for existing gas users and reduce costs for new home buyers since they would be more likely to end up with a heat pump instead of a gas furnace, which would be cheaper to operate.
Background:
The OEB decision would save gas customers over $2 billion over five years, or approximately $600 per customer. The OEB decision would also encourage more heat pumps in new buildings, which would lower energy bills for new homebuyers while lowering carbon pollution. As the resolution states, “natural gas is no longer the cheapest way to heat homes because electric heat pumps are now much more efficient, can provide all heating needs even in the cold climates, and result in far lower energy bills over the long term compared to gas heating.”
Enbridge has been asking municipalities to lobby the Ontario government to pass legislation reversing the decision, which is what prompted this resolution from the City of Hamilton. The resolution notes that reversing the OEB decision would be “inconsistent with the City’s climate targets and will result in higher carbon emissions, higher energy bills, higher future decarbonization retrofit costs to get off fossil fuel heating, and a continued financial drain as dollars leave the province to pay for fossil fuels extracted in other jurisdictions.”
Natural gas is actually methane gas. It is a fossil fuel that causes approximately one-third of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions. Heating homes and businesses with gas accounts for approximately 19 per cent of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions. New gas pipelines generally have a 60-year lifetime, extending far beyond 2050. It is financially and environmentally irresponsible to be building new pipelines and installing gas equipment in new developments with a massive subsidy worth over $250 million each year.
The motion was moved by Councillor Craig Cassar and passed unanimously. Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor J.P. Danko said: “[t]he solution is so obvious, it is hard to see why this is an issue for discussion. … As a gas customer, I am shocked to understand that I am subsidising new gas pipelines. … If we replaced our furnace today, we would replace it with a heat pump.”
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement by Emilia Belliveau, Energy Transition Program Manager
Montréal/Tiohtià:ke | Traditional, unceded lands of the Kanien’kehá:ka/Mohawk Nation, a gathering place for many First Nations, including the Anishinaabeg – We applaud the introduction of the Private Member’s Bill C-372, banning false advertising by the oil and gas industry in Canada. If passed into law, the bill would be a valuable step toward limiting misinformation about fossil fuels and countering greenwashing.
The fossil fuel industry has a long and well documented history of denying climate science and funding advertising campaigns to greenwash oil and gas. The industry’s advertisements have misled the public about climate change, downplayed or failed to acknowledge that fossil fuels are causing the climate crisis, ignored the damaging impact fossil fuels have on our health, and misrepresented the “sustainability” of companies or their role in the energy transition. We must be clear: effective climate action requires a transition away from fossil fuels.
Greenwashing is pervasive as the world moves to tackle the climate crisis. But federal regulations and consumer protections in Canada are lacking when it comes to fossil fuel companies’ faulty environmental claims. The Competition Bureau has launched investigations into false advertising by Shell and the Pathways Alliance, both of which changed or stopped running their ads in response. In January, the Competition Bureau announced that it would begin an investigation of Enbridge Gas.
With so many instances of greenwashing and false or misleading claims, the oil and gas industry is manipulating the public’s understanding of the negative climate, health, and environmental consequences of fossil fuels. Continuing to allow fossil fuel advertisements is a threat to climate action, as well as public health and safety. We urge all parties to support Bill C-372.
Background Information
The bill was put forward yesterday by Member of Parliament Charlie Angus. It will need to be debated in Parliament before moving through the legislative process.
Similar in form to the 1997 Tobacco Act that put strong restrictions on promotion and advertising of smoking and cigarettes, Bill C-372 prohibits the promotion of fossil fuels or the production of oil, coal, and gas, particularly in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive. It also prohibits a producer or retailer from offering rebates or gifts in exchange for purchasing fossil fuel products. It makes exceptions for the production of artistic or scientific work, and does not ban signage at retail and sale locations.
Corporate greenwashing isn’t new, but has come under increased scrutiny as action to address climate change becomes more urgent. To help address the issue, the United Nations appointed former Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, to lead a high profile committee to tackle greenwashing. The High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities has developed recommendations on how non-state actors like companies must act in alignment with their net-zero commitments, in order not to greenwash.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – A year ago, news broke that Imperial Oil’s Kearl mine had been leaking toxic industrial wastewater for over nine months while keeping local Indigenous communities in the dark. The public only learned about the leak after a subsequent spill at the same facility, which released 5.3 million litres of industrial waste into the environment. Despite this, a year later, Imperial Oil has not faced charges or penalties under the Fisheries Act or provincial environmental protection laws.
“It is infuriating that no one has faced legal consequences for the Imperial Oil disaster and cover up. Governments watch as oil companies break the rules, raking in record profits while leaving an environmental disaster. The tar sands’ toxic tailings grow larger every day, threatening rivers, wildlife, and entire communities. Imperial Oil must be charged, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s time for a moratorium on tailings growth and a credible plan to clean up this toxic mess. Anything less leaves communities at the mercy of corporate negligence,” said Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager at Environmental Defence
“The Imperial Oil disaster confirmed what our communities have said for generations: big polluters are free to do whatever they want in our traditional territory – our backyards. The Alberta Energy Regulator has shown us over and over that it is willfully neglecting to keep us safe from toxic waste and pollution. It must be dismantled and rebuilt with a co-governing body, where downstream impacted Indigenous communities have policy-making authority and leadership roles,” said Jesse Cardinal, Executive Director at Keepers of the Water.
Environmental Defence expert Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager, will testify before the Parliamentary Environment Committee (ENVI) today about the impacts of tar sands mining, including its toxic tailings waste on groundwater.
Background information:
The Alberta Energy Regulator issued an order on February 6th, 2023, to Imperial Oil, Canada’s 3rd largest oil sands producer, in response to two incidents in which wastewater from toxic tailings leaked into the environment. One of the incidents spilled 5.3 million litres of industrial waste.
In 2020, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an environmental agency created under NAFTA, confirmed the tar sands tailings ponds were leaking toxic chemicals into groundwater and that these leaks violate Canada’s Fisheries Act.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
About KEEPERS OF THE WATER (keepersofthewater.ca): Keepers of the Water are First Nations, Métis, Inuit, environmental groups, concerned citizens, and communities working together for the protection of water, air, land, and all living things within the Arctic Ocean Drainage Basin.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Paula Gray, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Jesse Cardinal, Keepers of the Water, ed@keepersofthewater.ca
Statement by Phil Pothen, Ontario Environment Program Manager, on reports of forthcoming legislation to reinstate forced boundary expansions and circumvent expropriation & land use rules
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Environmental Defence is concerned by recent reports in the Narwhal that the Ontario government is contemplating a new bill that would throw gasoline on the government’s smoldering sprawl and real estate scandal. Ironically referred to as the “Get It Done Act”, this rumoured new bill would actually make it more difficult for Ontario municipalities to fix the affordable housing shortage and GTA traffic gridlock.
The potential new law would reignite the Ontario government’s sprawl and land speculation scandal in three main ways:
The bill being considered would backtrack on last year’s reversal of the corrupt settlement boundary expansions that were imposed on Golden Horseshoe regions in 2022. While the government did not reverse unnecessary expansions approved by regional governments, the reversals that were made received praise from both housing supply and environmental advocates as a modest and necessary step in curbing sprawl and addressing the real estate scandal.
The so-called “special building zones” reported on by the Narwhal appear calculated to let the provincial government take over local decision-making power in order to accelerate hand-picked projects. This would let the province force municipalities to divert infrastructure and resources away from building more labour and cost-efficient housing in existing neighbourhoods in order to prioritize sprawl subdivisions.
Finally, the bill is designed to prevent landowners who aren’t in on the Highway 413 scheme from legally challenging the seizure of their land. This appears to be designed to help the Ontario government move quickly to destroy habitats, waterways and indigenous sites that fall within federal jurisdiction, in the event that delays in introducing an updated federal Impact Assessment Act creates a temporary gap in federal environmental protections. While the federal government has clear jurisdiction to review the Highway 413 project, a recent court decision means the impact assessment that is currently protecting the affected swathe of farms, forests, and wetlands must be transitioned to a revised Impact Assessment Act. If the federal government fails to introduce the new Act before the old one becomes invalid, there could be a temporary gap in protection.
News of this potential bill should be a wake-up call to Ontarians that this government has still not learned its lesson. It remains fixated on finding new ways to divert scarce construction labour, equipment and infrastructure to low-density sprawl at the expense of efficient and compact family homes within existing settlement areas. It also reveals a government that is willfully disregarding the mounting evidence that it would be much cheaper and faster to subsidize trucks to use the nearby 407 to free up commuter space on the 401.
Despite all the successes of the past year, Ontarians will need to keep up the pressure to prevent the government from returning to its old, sprawling ways.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Expert Testimony on the Impact of Toxic Tailings on Groundwater
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Tomorrow, Environmental Defence expert Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager, will testify before the Parliamentary Environment Committee (ENVI) about the impacts of tar sands mining, including its toxic tailings waste on groundwater. This testimony comes on the first anniversary of Imperial Oil’s Kearl mine disaster in the tar sands, which spilled 5.3 million litres of toxic tailings into the surrounding environment.
Who: Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence.
When: Tuesday, February 6th, 2024.
Where: Ottawa, ON, and available remotely.
Rougeot will speak to the risks and impacts of the over 1.4 trillion litres of tailings (wastewater produced in the oil extraction process) on groundwater. The tailings contain a dangerous mixture of chemicals, including heavy metals and naphthenic acids. A recent scientific study has also revealed that tar sands companies have underreported their toxic emissions by up to 6300 per cent — a significant portion of which may be coming from toxic tailings. The full extent of the danger presented by oil sands process water on human health remains understudied.
Background Information:
Toxic tailings ponds now cover an area of over 300 sq km, equivalent to 2.6 times the size of the city of Vancouver.
In 2020, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation surveyed all publicly available peer-reviewed studies and concluded there is scientifically valid evidence of oil sands process water (tailings) seepage into the groundwater around tailings ponds.
In May 2022, Imperial Oil workers discovered tailings fluid leaking offsite from the company’s Kearl oil sands mine onto nearby land. Internal reports reveal that seepage from this tailings pond has been ongoing since 2020.
Imperial Oil reported the leak to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and met with the provincial regulator, but the general public and nearby Indigenous communities were not informed about the extent and seriousness of the leak for over nine months.
In February 2023, 5.3 million litres of wastewater spilled from the same Imperial Oil tailings area. The toxic waste leaked into boreal wetlands and tributaries where water drains to drinking water sources. It was only through this second spill that Indigenous communities fully learned of the extent of the pervasive belowground leak, which is still ongoing to this day.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry, and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate, and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Paula Gray, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith will be in Ottawa on Monday, February 5th. According to Politico, Premier Smith will be opening an Alberta office in Ottawa.
Over the past two months, Premier Smith has been vocal in her opposition to critical federal policies designed to combat climate change and its devastating impact on our economy, our communities and the environment. These policies include new clean electricity rules, the Sustainable Jobs Act and the proposed cap on emissions from the oil and gas industry – even though the proposed emissions cap has support from the majority of Albertans. Premier Smith also spent $8 million on an ad campaign designed to spread misinformation about clean electricity.
Premier Smith has attacked clean energy in her own province of Alberta. Her decision to impose a moratorium on renewable energy faced widespread opposition across the province, given its impact on the economy. Alberta generates almost 40 per cent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions – more than any other province – and is the only province where emissions have gone up significantly over the past two decades.
While Premier Smith visits Ottawa, presumably to stir up opposition to the global effort to combat climate change, Alberta braces itself for a historic drought impacting every corner of the province, alongside what is expected to be a devastating fire season. Of course, these are both connected to warmer and drier conditions, which are a result of rising global temperatures.
Experts from Environmental Defence Canada will be available to comment on Premier Smith’s visit and the importance of critical federal climate change policies, such as the clean electric regulations, the Sustainable Jobs Act and an emissions cap on oil and gas pollution.
When: Monday, February 5th, and throughout the week
Who:
Julia Levin, Associate Director National Climate, Environmental Defence – Ottawa
Aly Hyder Ali, Oil and Gas Program Manager, Environmental Defence – Ottawa
Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence – Ottawa and remote
Where: Ottawa, Ontario
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement by Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – New analysis released today from the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) demonstrates that the Government of Canada is still intent on providing massive subsidies to fossil fuel companies.
Carbon capture and storage is a dangerous distraction being promoted by the oil and gas industry to prolong business as usual. Though the PBO was not able to release information on the specific projects, the majority of the projects that have been proposed to date are in the energy sector. Similarly, many of the hydrogen projects included in the analysis were for the production of hydrogen from fossil fuels.
These tax credits violate the Government of Canada’s own rules around ending fossil fuel subsidies, released last year. The new rules were supposed to ensure that government spending aligns with a 1.5 degree pathway and don’t hinder the transition to renewable energy. These tax credits fail on both fronts.
The new analysis shows that Minister Freeland’s CCUS tax credit is likely to cost $5.746 billion by 2028. That’s nearly $1 billion more than Finance Canada had estimated in Budget 2023. However, these tax credits are being designed without a ceiling. That means the final cost for Canadian taxpayers could end up being much, much greater. For example, the Pathways Alliance could claim at least $6 billion for their proposed $16.5 billion carbon capture hub – that’s just one project.
At COP28, countries promised to transition away from fossil fuels and triple renewable energy in the next six years. Canada needs massive investments to deliver on those really critical climate promises. Instead, Minister Freeland is doubling down on the dangerous distractions being promoted by oil and gas companies. Though a clean electricity tax credit is also in the works, its development has been much slower and the draft rules have yet to be released.
Minister Freeland and the Government of Canada must stop prioritizing massively expensive, risky, unnecessary and ineffective technofixes over reliable and proven climate solutions. Taxpayer money should go to climate solutions – like wind and solar power and energy storage. Not to the companies and activities which are fueling the climate crisis.
Background Information:
The PBO’s analysis costed the two tax credits until 2028. According to Budget 2023, the CCUS ITC could cost $9.1 billion by 2030 and possibly $16 billion by its expected phase-out date of 2041. The hydrogen tax credit could cost $17.7 billion by 2035. Whereas the CCUS ITC rules have been finalized, the draft hydrogen ITC rules are currently undergoing consultation. British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta are the only jurisdictions currently eligible for the CCUS ITC.
The development of the CCUS ITC was opposed by over 400 of Canada’s leading experts.
The CCUS ITC is the largest, but not the only, federal program meant to support carbon capture. Last fall Natural Resources Canada released a list of 22 measures that the federal government has implemented to support the deployment of CCUS.
The International Energy Agency has called the oil and gas industry’s carbon capture plans a fantasy and warned governments against allowing companies to use these plans to justify business as usual. “Continuing with business-as-usual for oil & gas while hoping a vast deployment of carbon capture will cut the emissions is fantasy,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol said late November.
A new report out of Oxford University finds that heavy dependence on carbon capture to reach net zero would be “highly economically damaging”, costing at least $30 trillion more than a route based primarily on renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification.
The issue of companies claiming credits for unverified tons of captured carbon is rampant in the United States, where a similar tax credit is in place. An investigation by the US Internal Revenue Service found that 87 per cent of the total credits claimed, amounting to nearly US $1 billion, were not in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca, 416-356-2587
Statement from Senior Program Manager for Plastics, Karen Wirsig, on the decision to stay the ruling on the plastics listing to protect the ban on single-use plastics
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – We are pleased that the Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the government that the plastics listing and the ban on single-use plastics must stand while the government appeals the lower court decision quashing the listing of plastic manufactured items as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Federal action on plastic pollution is in the public interest and banning harmful single-use plastics is an important measure to protect the environment. Businesses have already moved away from these polluting items and people in Canada have embraced the change. It would make no sense to move backward on the bans now, especially before the courts have a final word on the plastic industry’s case.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Statement from Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate
Ottawa | Traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg People – Governments in Canada must pay close attention to today’s decision by President Biden to put the brakes on new natural gas export projects.
Earlier this morning, the U.S. administration announced it is halting reviews of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects in order to better evaluate both the climate change impacts and the cost of living impacts of those projects.
In Canada, climate change is still not a significant part of how fossil fuel projects are evaluated. As a result, governments keep approving climate bombs, like the giant Bay du Nord offshore oil project. The Government of Canada should follow President Biden’s lead and implement a climate test that requires a comprehensive review of the climate, health, environmental justice and economic impacts of fossil fuel projects.
In addition to the climate impacts, the US administration also cited cost of living concerns as a reason for its decision. Research shows that developing LNG projects for export increases the cost of natural gas domestically, leading to higher bills for households that use the fossil fuel to heat their homes or cook with. Pausing LNG exports is a concrete way to stop the cost of living crisis from getting worse.
Today’s decision underpins how shaky both the economic and climate rationales for new fossil gas projects are, particularly given the volatility of LNG prices and declining long-term global demand. At COP28, countries sent a clear message that we’re at the end of the fossil fuel era. President Biden’s decision further drives the point home. Canada should follow.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Allen Braude, Environmental Defence, media@environmentaldefence.ca, 416-356-2587
Statement from Aliénor Rougeot, Climate and Energy Program Manager
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – The revelations from today’s report are deeply disturbing, but not surprising, given the industry’s track record. Oil companies in the tar sands are emitting 1900 to 6300 per cent more polluting gases than what they have been reporting.
It’s outrageous that the oil industry has been getting away with only measuring and reporting a fraction of its pollution – and using this information to dismiss health concerns raised by local Indigenous communities for decades. Communities were told they were safe, but today’s report validates their concerns about the ongoing stench and unbreathable air.
The government must thoroughly investigate how this negligence was allowed to happen. From leaking toxic tailings to polluting gases, oil companies repeatedly keep communities and governments in the dark while they profit off destruction.
These findings also add to the mountain of evidence that the industry is incapable of safely managing its toxics tailings. Months ago, the same communities were grappling with a massive tailings leak that was kept secret for over nine months. Now, evidence shows that the bulk of unreported emissions could be coming from toxic tailings. Companies must be forced to use their massive profits to clean up their mess.
Background info:
Scientists from Yale University and the Government of Canada’s Environment and Climate Change department released a new study showing total emissions of carbon compounds in the oil sands are 20 to 64 times higher than reported.
Carbon organic compounds are carbon-containing gases and vapors such as gasoline fumes and solvents (but excluding carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons). Many carbon organic compounds are known or suspected of having direct toxic effects on humans, ranging from carcinogenesis to neurotoxicity.
The study finds that total carbon emissions from the tar sands alone are more than the total reported across all industries for 2018.
The study names Syncrude, Suncor, and Canadian Natural Resources as the three highest emitters.
The main reason for the discrepancy between actual and reported emissions is that some types of carbon compounds were not taken into account by monitoring and reporting studies, despite being required by the National Pollutant Release Inventory.
The authors hypothesise that tailings could be an important source of the unreported emissions.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – The Competition Bureau of Canada has officially launched an investigation into Enbridge Gas’ marketing campaign targeting new gas customers. The complaint, filed by Environmental Defence, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a number of affected residents, calls out Enbridge for claiming that gas is the most cost effective way for Ontarians to heat their homes, when heat pumps are in fact the least expensive option. It also flags misleading language suggesting that gas is “clean energy” and “low carbon.”
“Enbridge’s dishonest marketing is duping people into installing new gas hook ups and spending thousands of dollars on new gas furnaces and other appliances, falsely claiming it’s cheaper than heating with electricity which is just not true,” said Keith Brooks, Programs Director at Environmental Defence. “It is good that the Competition Bureau has agreed to investigate Enbridge.”
These misrepresentations are causing real harm. Customers in gas expansion areas stand to lose thousands of dollars if they switch to gas instead of installing high-efficiency electric heat pumps (over the lifetime of the equipment). Gas expansion will also create far more carbon pollution, making it more difficult and expensive to reach federal climate targets.
“I am outraged by Enbridge’s campaign filled with misleading information about the cost and environmental impact of its polluting product. Its new pipeline in Selwyn Township will deliver harmful fossil gas to our residents who will be locked in to higher prices for decades,” said Guy Hanchet, a resident of Selwyn, Ontario.
The complaint was initially limited to marketing materials aimed at areas where Enbridge is expanding its natural gas pipeline network. It has since been expanded to include deceptive marketing aimed at all of its 3.8 million customers in Ontario claiming that natural gas is the most affordable option on the market, which is not true.
“I cannot believe Enbridge has been allowed to mislead people for so long about the cost of its gas compared to heat pumps. We have a heat pump installed in our home and know it saves us money,” said Lesley Hastie, a resident of Huntsville, Ontario.
“Heat pumps are an amazing technology that allow people to get their homes off of fossil fuels and save money while doing so,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of Ontario Clean Air Alliance. “People need to know that if they are about to install new heating and cooling equipment, they should go with a heat pump. But Enbridge is misleading these people and trying to lock in more Ontarians to gas. It’s shameful and should be brought to a stop.”
“The health harms of having gas in the home are clear. The use of gas in the home contributes to the development of childhood asthma. The expansion of gas infrastructure also contributes to the climate crisis, which is the greatest health threat we face. Instead, we need to expand the use of clean electric heat pumps, which do not harm health” said Dr. Samantha Green, family physician and president-elect of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Background Information
For a long time, fossil gas was the cheapest way to heat homes and provide hot water. However, electric heat pumps are now the cheapest option.
Annual energy costs are far lower as heat pumps are approximately three times more efficient than gas furnaces (or five times for ground-source heat pumps, also known as geothermal). Getting off gas also saves the monthly “customer charge” levied by Enbridge for use of the gas system (e.g. saving a Torontonian $310 per year). Heat pumps also cool more efficiently than traditional air conditioners, resulting in electricity cost savings in the summer. And only heat pumps (not gas equipment) are eligible for up to $40,000 in interest-free federal green financing and up to $6,500 in rebates for eligible customers (or $10,000 for eligible customers switching from oil).
Heat pumps systems now work very well in Ontario’s cold climate – even in places as cold as Thunder Bay. Although it is always best to make homes more efficient regardless of the heating system you use, heat pumps are appropriate even for old and leaky homes. In fact, customers with old and leaky homes will save even more from heat pumps than the average customer because their heating needs and costs are higher to begin with.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – It is shocking that the Ministry of Energy is moving to overrule the Ontario Energy Board, which made a very sound decision to save homeowners money by encouraging new homes to be built with heat pumps, rather than gas furnaces. The speed at which this decision was made by the Ministry is also concerning.
The OEB decision would eliminate the subsidy for housing developers to connect to the gas system effective January 1, 2025. Currently, developers can receive a subsidy worth up to $6k per home, with an average of $4.5k per home. The OEB said eliminating this subsidy would encourage developers to install heat pumps instead, which will improve affordability by lowering heating costs while also reducing risks and costs for all other gas ratepayers. The OEB decision is a win-win for everyone but Enbridge, which stands to lose both customers and profits. The government’s planned legislation would accomplish the opposite – a huge win for Enbridge and a loss for all Ontarians.
The OEB specifically found that developers opt to put in gas because they don’t have to pay for the gas pipes (because of the subsidy) or for the higher energy bills that home buyers pay from having gas instead of heat pumps.
The government’s assertion that the OEB decision would halt the construction of homes is false. Developers can just forgo gas connections and install heat pumps instead, which would be “a win for homebuyers” in the OEB’s words. If the government wants to subsidize the cost of new homes even more, they should do that through a subsidy for green electricity infrastructure.
The Minister’s support for subsidies for new fossil fuel infrastructure – a new gas pipeline – that has a 60-year lifetime is indicative of this government’s interest in fighting climate change.
It is essential that new homes be built with decarbonization in mind, both to limit their contributions to climate change and to save homeowners the costs associated with retrofitting their home sometime in the future.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
Toronto | Traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, and the Wendat – Environmental Defence and Équiterre applaud Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, for finalizing Canada’s Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which will require automakers to gradually shift to 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2035. This is a crucial policy that will help put Canada on the path to net zero emissions.
“The Electric Vehicle Availability Standard is a holiday gift to the planet. Canada will now join the ranks of leading jurisdictions such as the European Union, California, Quebec and British Columbia, in phasing out the sale of new gasoline cars at the pace required by global net zero objectives. This regulation will also help address affordability challenges by ensuring that the budget electric vehicle (EV) models coming to market aren’t just available overseas, but are readily available in Canada too. Increasing overall zero-emission vehicle supply will cut order wait times, bring more affordable clean cars to the used vehicle market, and send a powerful signal to automakers to invest in research and development to lower electric vehicle prices. With significant taxpayer subsidies going to EV battery plants in Canada, this regulation ensures that Canadians will be the first in line to buy the cars we are paying to help make,” said Nate Wallace, Clean Transportation Program Manager, Environmental Defence.
“Canada needs its own independent Electric Vehicle Availability Standard because we have more ambitious ZEV adoption targets than the United States. The flawed US tailpipe rules have encouraged automakers to shift vehicle sales to increasingly larger and heavier gasoline SUVs and trucks and have significantly undermined the emissions benefits from greater fuel economy. This regulation ensures that automakers take responsibility for their impact on the planet and gives everyone across Canada greater access to zero-emission vehicles, regardless of which province they live in,” said Anne-Catherine Pilon, Transportation and mobility analyst, Équiterre.
Higher expectations
Environmental Defence and Équiterre also acknowledge that there continues to be room for improvement. We continue to underline that ZEV sales targets could be higher in line with reference jurisdictions and the three-year grace period given to automakers before enforcement is too long. Given current market trends, Canada is already likely to sail past the 20 per cent ZEV sales target in 2026, and the new inclusion of ‘early action credits’ was completely unnecessary and serves only to weaken the regulation in the early years. We were encouraged by the added requirements for eligibility for ‘ZEV-related activities’ though would have preferred if this flexibility mechanism were eliminated entirely. We are also very encouraged that overall, core elements of the regulation were not weakened by the introduction of things such as credit multipliers.
Looking to the future, we hope that this progress on zero-emission vehicles also leads to similar ambition in reducing emissions through shifting travel to public and active transportation. While this regulation will play an important role in accelerating the transition to electric vehicles, it is still important to remember that the decarbonization of the transportation sector must also focus on the importance of reducing the number and the size of vehicles on our roads.
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, industry and individuals to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
ABOUT ÉQUITERRE (equiterre.org): Équiterre seeks to make the necessary collective transitions toward an equitable and environmentally sound future more tangible, accessible, and inspiring. Since 1993, Équiterre has been helping to find solutions, transform social norms, and encourage ambitious public policies through research, support, education, mobilization, and awareness-building initiatives. This progress is helping to establish new principles for how we feed ourselves, how we get around, and how we produce and consume, that are designed for our communities, respectful of our ecosystems, in line with social justice, and of course, low in carbon.
– 30 –
For more information or to request an interview, please contact:
