This morning finds me in Sackville New Brunswick, home of Mount Allison University. Yesterday I had a great meeting with local concerned citizens in Moncton about the multiple threats to New Brunswick of Capital B BIG projects, and the night before I attended another in Fredericton. Citizens are waking up and organizing against the new US-owned LNG plant planned for the Tantramar Marsh area, a huge AI data Centre planned for Lorneville, the proposed Sisson tungsten and molybdenum mine, and more.

Just as I found in Nova Scotia on Monday at an anti-uranium mining effort in the Halifax area and on Tuesday at the AGM of a long-standing, well-respected international conservation organization, Friends of Nature, people are angry at their governments. Nova Scotia’s Premier overturned the moratorium on uranium mining in place since 1981. Nova Scotia had a long Royal Commission of Inquiry in the early 1980s that concluded with a 1985 firm recommendation from Judge Robert McCleave that uranium exploration and mining were incompatible with Nova Scotia’s existing industries and public health. Premier Tim Houston reversed that decades-old decision, one enshrined in law, without any public consultation. Similarly, he reversed the provincial fracking ban. As one local citizen pointed out “PROBLEM, we have a Houston!”

This afternoon, we head west by train at least as far as Montreal on VIA’s legendary route, “The Ocean.” Lucky for me, since John could not come with me, my dear friend Karen joined me so I had company on long drives. And the amazing Syd and Sandy Dumaresq, mainstays of Friends of Nature, lent me their plug-in hybrid! They take the train from Halifax today and as they disembark in Sackville, I give them the keys to their fully charged car and board for the overnight trip to Montreal. At least that is the plan!!

We received some great news on Friday. Likely in anticipation of the upcoming Toronto by-election in Beaches East York, the federal government has announced it will not support Premier Doug Ford’s plan to expand the Toronto Island airport to allow jet travel. It is a good sign the Carney Liberals can be moved by fear of losing a seat! The Greens in Beaches East York will have a nomination meeting soon. Two great candidates are vying for the chance to represent the Greens in the upcoming race.

In other encouraging news, the government has confirmed it received over 20,000 emails in response to the May 8th discussion papers that had threatened major rollbacks of environmental and Indigenous rights protections. Canadian Press reporter Nick Murray reached me on the road. His article was full of interesting points.

I prepared a submission for the Green Party and it is posted in full  on my MP website: Response to the May 8 Discussion papers: “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” and “Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation”

Now we must be hyper-vigilant for the legislated changes based on the May 8th papers still poised to be legislation in September.

And in lockstep with Carney’s “move fast and break things” approach comes Premier Eby with this announcement: Delta’s Tilbury LNG expansion project gets green light from B.C. government More GHG emissions. More fracking. How do elected leaders in this country fail to notice we are on fire? And they call it progress when they pour fuel on the flames!

This week my focus shifts to the Vancouver area. We have a fundraising event for the campaign to elect Shelley Luce in North Vancouver-Capilano on Friday night. If you would like to come and meet Shelley, please email us at <info@sgigreenparty.ca>. The writ drop is likely for August 25. That means advance polls will be over the Labour Day weekend. No time to waste in getting prepared! I will tour Pride at the Pier in North Vancouver with Shelley on August 1. The next day is the big Vancouver Pride parade. Join us! Vancouver Greens, BC Greens and GPC volunteers and leaders will all march together.

One last thing. This petition is getting a lot of attention. If you want to sign on, deadline is July 30.

e-7395

Petition to the House of Commons

Whereas:

• As Canada enters a building phase, Prime Minister Mark Carney asked for cost saving ideas;
• Since 1950, Stornoway, 541 Acacia Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, has been the official residence of Canada’s Leader of the Official Opposition;
• The main building has 19 main rooms, approximately 9,500 square feet (883 meters);
• Stornoway is served by a staff of three: a chef, chauffeur, and household administrator;
• The National Capital Commission manages this property, which is closed to the public;
• Canada is the only western democracy to fund a residence for the Official Opposition;
• This cost saving petition is deliberately silent on implementation.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to stop funding Stornoway as a private residence for the Leader of the Official Opposition.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Sign/e-7395

Thanks. Take care and more in your in box next Sunday!

Love from New Brunswick! and Via Rail!

Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #327 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On May 8, 2026, two discussion papers were released by the federal government.

On May 12, I wrote the two lead ministers, the Hon Steven MacKinnon and the Hon. Dominic Leblanc pointing out the discussion papers had sweeping proposals with vague terminology and obscure, or no, criteria. I requested, on an urgent basis, a full briefing for all Members of Parliament. I never received an acknowledgement of that letter, no response and no briefing.

The letter is included here:

The Honourable Steven MacKinnon
The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc

May 12, 2026

Re: URGENT request for full briefing on papers released May 8, 2026

Dear Ministers,

I am writing to request in-depth briefings, available to all Members of Parliament, to better understand the proposals in the two discussion documents released Friday, May 8, 2026.

• Get Major Projects Built in Canada
• Strengthen One Canadian Economy through Trade and Transportation

In reading these documents, many questions come to mind. The language used is sometimes very specific and sometimes quite vague and without qualifiers, as in “some projects” or “certain projects.” Some of what is being proposed may make sense, but a number of key questions, some constitutional, require more detail before one can even prepare a response to the consultation. For example, what is a federal regional economic zone as it pertains to provincial resources?

As Parliament is not in session until May 25, and the deadline for submissions is June 7, I respectfully request briefings for Members of Parliament with adequate access to officials to be able to obtain detailed answers to our questions. Such briefings should be open sessions allowing accredited news media the ability to report on what we learn, assisting Canadians to submit their own comments. Rights holders from First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples will, I hope, already have detailed sessions available for their questions to be answered, as is their right. I request parliamentary briefings, one on each paper, take place in the week of May 25.

Perhaps you are already planning briefings, but the breadth and scope of the sweeping changes under consideration require fuller background and details of what is being proposed. Otherwise, the consultations are merely pro forma exercises.

Many thanks for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

C.C:

The Right Honourable Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada
The Honourable Rebecca Alty, Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition
Yves Francois Blanchet, Leader of the Bloc Québécois
Don Davies, Parliamentary Leader of the NDP
Alexandre Boulerice, MP
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault, MP

Wisely, the government delayed the deadline for responses to the discussion documents from June 7 to July 22. Nevertheless, no details were provided and the threat of moving rapidly to legislate the changes put forward on May 8th remains a significant threat to the environment, climate action, endangered species and Indigenous rights.

The areas of vagueness and questionable constitutionality remain a concern. It is largely due to the vague, over-lapping and incoherent presentation of these two papers that responding to them as two separate documents is challenging. Hence, this one response is to be understood as a response to both,

These are questions that should have been answered in the discussion paper itself:

1. What is an “Economic zone?” How are federal/provincial areas of authority, s 91 and s 92 constitutional boundaries to exist in a unified “economic zone?”
2. How is s.35 of the Constitution respected with so-called “streamlining” of Indigenous consultation?

The “move fast and break things” logic outlined by this discussion paper is deeply concerning. I am appalled by the rollback of the precautionary principle. It is the responsibility of the federal government to assess its own decisions, especially in the case of big projects. 

In the book, How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, from Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In Between, authors Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner describe core principles to the success of a project. This discussion paper’s myopic focus on “build fast” goes exactly against the advice of their extensive research. 

Their principles for success include: 

• Plan Slow, Act Fast: Rushing to the construction phase is a recipe for disaster. Working out flaws during the planning stage is cheaper and faster overall.
• Understand the Unknown Unknowns: Prepare for unexpected challenges by actively mitigating risks rather than blindly hoping everything goes perfectly.
• Know Your Biggest Risk Is You: Over-optimism, cognitive biases, and poor psychological forecasting are the leading causes of project failure.

Flyvbjerg and Gardner also caution that failures for large complex projects are rarely normally distributed, but more often fall in the “fat tail” off the right of “normal”. This means that when projects fail, they fail spectacularly: e.g., 200-300% over budget, years longer than anticipated. The stakes are high, and we should treat every project with a keen understanding of this reality. 

This proposed strategy would give Prime Minister-appointed (not elected) representatives, such as Ministers, unprecedented power to exempt projects from legislation such as the Impact Assessment Act. Under the guise of ‘national interest’ – and its nebulous definition – the Governor-in-Council will be allowed to create Federal Economy Zones to “pre-approve” projects. These actions run completely contrary to our commitment to environmental protection and Indigenous consultation as enshrined in law. This cutting of red tape constitutes a serious slippery slope. As we have seen with Bill C-5, what gets sacrificed in this rush to fast track major projects are things we cannot afford to sacrifice: Indigenous rights, protections for endangered species, nature and human health and wellbeing.

At this critical juncture, Canada cannot afford to go down the same path as the US. The Trump administration’s gutting of environmental and health regulations to clear the path for large projects should be a cautionary tale. Moving fast and breaking things is a recipe for disaster, not a road map to economic prosperity. 

SUMMARY

The Green Part of Canada’s (GPC) view is that legislation to implement the Discussion Paper will seriously jeopardize achievement of the 2030 Nature Strategy and $3.8 billion Force of Nature Action Plan. Defining Canada’s environmental responsibilities as mere ‘red tape’ is dangerously short-sighted. Further, setting aside Canada’s international and domestic legal responsibilities to nature would be a dangerous misstep prejudicing Canada’s reputation and competitiveness, inviting actions by other countries contrary to Canada’s national interests. 

Nature is an economic ally not an obstacle. Nature is not an impediment to economic development but rather an indispensable support. Impact assessment is the ‘credit check’ before the loan is approved, combining due diligence and fiduciary responsibility, and the only way to ensure enduring prosperity of major projects.

INTRODUCTION

The Discussion Papers provide a weak sketch for the proposed legislation, which could threaten Canada’s most vulnerable ecosystems. The proposals in the Discussion Paper appear to be founded on the unsubstantiated assumption that all major projects proposed by the extraction industries or governments are in the public interest prior to any public review of their economic, social or environmental impacts. The reality is that many major projects are abandoned or rejected not because of burdensome regulation, but because they are determined following public review to be uneconomic, unsustainable or not in the public interest.

GPC demands transparent answers to the following critical and unanswered questions before any legislation is introduced into Parliament:

• What is the evidence to support the assumption that current environmental assessment processes are hindering major projects, and why is this being prioritized over strengthening due diligence?
• What happens when a necessary federal review takes longer than the proposed one-year timeline, and how will the integrity of the process be maintained without undue political interference?
• How will “Special Economic Zones” be determined and regulated to ensure they do not become zones of environmental lawlessness?
• What specific mechanisms will protect long-term Canadian environmental and economic interests from foreign-backed applicants whose sole interest is extraction?
• How will critical terms like “national interest,” “environmental standards,” and “public interest” be clearly and legally defined, and what qualifications will Ministers be required to have when exercising these discretionary powers?
• How will the Cabinet and Ministers be held accountable for decisions that place species at risk in harm’s way, and what recourse will the public have?
• The following sections of this submission address in more detail issues raised by the above questions:
  • One-Year Review: More Haste less Speed
  • Zones of Environmental Lawlessness 
  • Extinguishing Species at Risk 
  • Getting Major Projects Done Right 

ONE-YEAR REVIEW: MORE HASTE LESS SPEED 

The Discussion Paper proposes “Federal review and decision-making in no more than one year” through “legislative changes to ensure that federal impact assessments and permits reviews happen at the same time instead of one after the other.” “Proponents will have one year to submit their finalized studies and information.”

In essence, this proposal would set out in law the federal commitment to a two-year decision-making process for major projects referred to in the 2025 Speech from the Throne. However, the proposal to be legislated would apply to all federal projects not just major projects. 

GPC point out that ‘One Project, One Review’ has been the norm for decades, long before the Harper administration repealed the Mulroney era Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), in omnibus budget bill, C-38 in spring 2012. The lie that projects have been subjected to redundant studies can be easily rebutted. Under the former CEAA the norm was “joint panel reviews” engaging both the federal government and the province most engaged in the project. In the case of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the BC government (under former premier Christy Clark) offered its cooperation by not ever performing an assessment. Only the federal government conducted one.

GPC does not accept that the Discussion Paper’s fast-tracking proposals will result in more efficient timely decisions supporting sustainable projects in the public interest. Quite the reverse.

GPC asserts that nature must be at the centre of federal decision making—not an afterthought–and include mandatory impact assessment for major projects with environmental effects in federal authority. Canadians agree. A recent Ekos poll finds that 74% of Canadians support the proposition that large projects that could harm natural ecosystems should undergo federal environmental assessment. Most Canadians (65%) also agree that provinces with lower environmental standards should have to adhere to a national standard for environmental assessments. 

Historically, impact assessments have resulted in better, more sustainable, mines, pipelines, dams and marine terminals with greater support in Indigenous and local communities and civil society. In a few cases, assessments have led proponents to abandon projects that were not sustainable, were uneconomic or which faced deep public opposition.

Failure to properly assess projects too often creates high risks of disasters such as the abandoned Giant Mine, whose arsenic-laced tailings must be managed (i.e., kept frozen) at taxpayer expense in perpetuity if poisoning of Great Slave Lake and the Mackenzie River is to be avoided. Failure to conduct rigorous cumulative impact assessments of the numerous oil sands developments in northern Alberta has resulted in releases of toxic substances into the Athabasca River; a failure of any one of the many oil sands tailings dams could result in ecological catastrophe. 

GPC has two principal concerns with mandating One-Year Review in law. The first is that a One-Year Review requirement will not work for larger, complicated projects, especially those located in multiple provinces or that seek support of multiple Indigenous nations. As well, pressurizing reviews to meet a one-year timeline for larger projects seems a recipe for poor decision making. 

The second concern relates to project and impact assessment information, typically prepared by proponents. The Discussion Paper suggests, without stating directly, that environmental impact statements would not be required. The Discussion Paper is also not clear as to whether the one-year period afforded to proponents to submit their finalized studies and information begins at the time of the Notice of Commencement or at a later time. If the former, it is not clear when the one-year period for federal review and decision-making would commence. In either case XYZ submits that entrenching in law a provision likely to be breached frequently makes little sense from a policy perspective. 

Recommendation: GPC recommends that the Discussion Paper’s One Year Review proposals be subject to meaningful public consultation in advance of tabling of legislation in Parliament. 

ZONES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWLESSNESS

The Discussion Paper proposes “legislation to create Federal Economic Zones” which “would cover areas like transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, energy production and transmission and industrial regions.” The federal Cabinet would have authority to “decide that certain developments within specific zones would be pre-approved . . .” This proposal mimics the Special Economic Zones proposed under Ontario’s Bill 5 Special Economic Zones Act that authorizes allows the provincial Cabinet to relax or suspend certain provincial and municipal regulations for undefined “trusted proponents” of major projects.

As proposed, these zones of environmental lawlessness could be decreed by federal fiat virtually anywhere in Canada given the breadth and variety of areas to be covered by the Discussion Paper. 

The title of this section suggests that these economic zones would be enabled “through regional impact assessments” but this role of regional impact assessments is not mentioned anywhere else in the Discussion Papers. This is a crucial ambiguity given that regional and strategic impact assessments legislated under the Impact Assessment Act have not played nor are designed to play any such role. 

While the Discussion Papers and frequent press releases attempt to create the impression that this government respects Indigenous rights, the government’s actions suggest this is not the case. The discussion papers’ specific proposals appear to have been developed in a settler culture bubble.

Recommendation: GPC urges the Government of Canada to withdraw this proposal from any proposed legislation. 

EXTINGUISHING SPECIES AT RISK 

The Discussion Paper proposes to give the federal Cabinet “limited power, with a high threshold to be met, to exempt specific projects from the application of the jeopardy test for species at risk, but only if it’s in the public interest and if the proponent has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce impacts on at-risk species.” This proposal would require an amendment to the federal Species at Risk Act and may have been initiated to allow increased oil/dilbit tanker traffic through the Salish Sea, habitat for critically endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. 

Extinction of this population of killer whales would not necessarily be the only outcome of such an amendment. Other major projects referred to the Major Projects Office could lead to the extirpation of other killer whale populations (LNG, dilbit and oil tanker projects) and extirpation or extinction of other species at risk populations such as Caribou (Mackenzie Valley Highway, Gray’s Bay Road and Port, Arctic Economic and Security Corridor) and Beluga and Polar Bear (Port of Churchill Plus). 

Recommendation: GPC urges the Government of Canada to withdraw this proposal from any proposed legislation.

GETTING MAJOR PROJECTS DONE RIGHT 

The Federal Major Projects initiative (including the Building Canada Act and the Spring 2026 Economic Statement’s commitment of $280 billion in federal funding over five years) is inconsistent with recent critical research by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner. Their 2023 book How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, from Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In Between describes why many major projects fail to meet budget or schedule or are never finished and strategies for successful projects. According to Flyvbjerg and Gardner, principles for successful projects include: 

• Plan Slow, Act Fast: Rushing to the construction phase is a recipe for disaster. Working out flaws during the planning stage is cheaper and faster overall;
• Understand the Unknown Unknowns: Prepare for unexpected challenges by actively mitigating risks rather than blindly hoping everything goes perfectly; and
• Know Your Biggest Risk Is You: Over-optimism, cognitive biases, and poor psychological forecasting are the leading causes of project failure.

GPC submits that the federal government is failing to heed these principles in its legislative process as well as in identifying the 16 major projects and 5 transformative strategies referred to the Major Projects Office. The draconian and rushed Building Canada Act is a leading example of this failure given that no major project has been designated under the law since it was enacted in June 2025. In hindsight, what was the rush? 

Prime Minister Carney’s announcement that construction of the 800km Mackenzie Valley Highway would commence in the summer 2026 without an impact assessment is another example of failure to abide by these principles. Exxon Mobil’s 2016 abandonment of the Mackenzie Gas Project (also proposed for the Mackenzie Valley) saved the corporation billions of dollars otherwise expended on an asset virtually certain to be stranded. The impact assessment itself led Exxon Mobil to finally understand the insuperable challenge of burying a 1800 km, high-pressure gas pipeline through a permafrost landscape subject to rapid climate change. Early construction would have guaranteed project failure and financial catastrophe for Exxon Mobil (and likely Canadian taxpayers). 

The Mackenzie Valley Highway, if constructed without assessment, would also likely be a white elephant. Other federal major projects may also be destined for abandonment or to be white elephants at great cost to proponents and taxpayers in the absence of careful public review. 

CONCLUSION

We strongly recommend that the new Liberal government conduct unbiased and transparent cost-benefit analysis of any and all proposed projects. It must not be assumed that large and environmentally damaging projects are economically viable.

If there is no demonstrable business case, the project should be aborted.

Only projects with a business case should be taken forward with 

1. Full consultation with Indigenous peoples.
2. Advance review for climate impacts, threats of species extinction, reduced ecological functions, and a full review of viable alternatives, with potentially improved economic results as well as enhanced environmental protection and biodiversity conservation.
3. No federal public funds should flow to projects that reduce Canada’s chances of meeting international obligations to reduce GHG emissions and Kunming-Montreal targets.

Download a PDF of this letter: Response to May 8 Discussion Papers_EMayMP-GPC_EN_July2026

The post Response to the May 8 Discussion papers: “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” and “Strengthening One Canadian Economy through trade and transportation” appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If you are near Victoria and feel like a good joyful march, BC and federal Greens are meeting TODAY at 10:30 on Government Street between Chatham and Herald. Pride parades are a new summer tradition. Toronto’s Pride was the first big one of the 2026 season, although the June Pride week events where I live in beautiful Sidney by the Sea were super. Next up is Salt Spring Island on July 19. The more the merrier!

Upcoming deadlines of note:

July 17 (this Friday!) is the deadline to apply to run for leader of the Green Party of Canada. Details here

And reminder, I am looking forward to passing the torch in November to a new leader, or co-leaders, but I am NOT retiring! I will be working hard in Parliament as a Green MP!

July 22 is the deadline to submit comments on two discussion documents released May 8: the federal government’s assault on species at risk, an expedited review of big projects, in the name of “streamlining” approvals of projects big and small. As I shared over a month ago, it was a big win to get the “BUILD BIG AND FAST” bulldozer to slow down long enough to give people time to comment. The original deadline of June 7 was pushed back to July 22. I think this was mostly thanks to Althia Raj writing in the Toronto Star that one suggested change to the Species at Risk Act seems targeted on the legal extinction of our Southern Resident Killer Whales. 

Quoting from Raj’s May 14 article:

“In a discussion paper released last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government proposed, among other things, to grant cabinet the ability to “exempt specific projects from the application of the jeopardy test for species at risk, but only if it’s in the public interest and if the proponent (of the project) has made all reasonable efforts to avoid or reduce impacts on at-risk species.”

“The “jeopardy test” is a prohibition on driving a species to extinction. “Not just kills the individuals, but wipes the species forever off the planet,” explained Environmental Defence’s Counsel and Ontario Environment Program Manager Phil Pothen.

“Several sources — including two within the government, who spoke on condition of anonymity — told the Star that the measure is a carve-out for the southern resident killer whales, in particular.”

These threats remain and strong responses are needed.

1. Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms
2. Canada’s new government to simplify and accelerate Canada’s regulatory process

This week, blink and you missed it, the Prime Minister removed one more Conservative MP. Richard Martel, Conservative Quebec MP, was appointed to the Senate. His seat is now vacant adding another by-election to the political calendar. 

The number of by-elections since the April 2025 federal election breaks all records – we just hit double digits. If you are trying to keep score, there were three by-elections in April 2026, (two created by the PM naming Liberal MPs he did not want in his cabinet to foreign assignments, and one by-election was due to court action.) In the result, the three seats were Liberal after the federal election and they stayed Liberal. 

Now, because the PM has appointed Jonathan Wilkinson (who I believe did not want to quit Parliament) as ambassador to the EU, there will be a by-election in North Vancouver Capilano. I hate seeing Wilkinson go. Although he and I did not agree on everything, as Fisheries Minister, he created the wild Pacific Salmon Strategy, as Energy and Natural Resources Minister, and as former Environment Minister with Steven Guilbeault, he played a key role in establishing the now cancelled climate policies.

Of course, my dear friend former Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will be officially leaving Parliament altogether, likely in August, requiring a by-election for his seat of Laurier-St Marie. NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice, who was the last remnant of Jack Layton’s 2011 Orange Crush in Quebec and the only NDP MP from Quebec, is already sitting as an Independent, preparatory to leaving the federal Parliament. He plans to run as a provincial candidate for Quebec Solidaire in the October provincial election. One Bloc MP has left Parliament to run provincially for the PQ, so that makes four by-elections for Quebec federal seats. One Conservative Saskatchewan MP retired (Cathay Waganthall from Yorkton Melville) and lastly, a very progressive, animal rights and climate activist, Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith, made it official last week when he  announced he is leaving federal Parliament. He quit his role as Toronto MP for the Beaches East York. So, the clock starts ticking on holding a by-election there.

That makes seven upcoming by-elections likely before the end of 2026—four in Quebec, one in Saskatchewan, one in Ontario and one in BC.

Chronologically from the first seat formally vacated, the earliest by-election to be called, perhaps as soon as early August, will likely be North Van. My hope is that citizens concerned about the new pipeline announcements, upset about threats to the South Resident Killer Whales, who are angry about $10 billion being spent to build Roberts Bank, AND make it the terminus for a new pipeline ALSO to be built with public funds, will decide that the North Vancouver by-election is a referendum on these horrors. If enough people get involved, we will elect a Green MP in that by-election. Our candidate in North Vancouver will be announced next week, so tune in next Sunday morning to find out more about the future MP for North Vancouver-Capilano! Nothing would communicate to the new Liberal government that voters want them to implement the platform they ran on rather than the one Poilievre ran on, nothing would be as powerful a message as losing what they assume is a “safe” Liberal seat.

In very good news, thank heavens someone is standing up for the marine environment of Burrard Inlet. This week theTsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) filed an application for Judicial Review of the Second Narrows Dredging. 

The work in restoring the marine environment has been painstaking. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation took years to rehabilitate the area. After a century of industrial use, it was almost a dead zone. I was talking the other day with Nikki Wright, the founder of Sea Change, the NGO featured on the TWN website documenting the work. Nikki said Burrard Inlet is now “teeming with life.” And the BC government and Ottawa want to destroy it to more fully load dilbit tankers! The TWN/ SeaChange partnership is inspiring. Restoring Burrard Inlet with Treaty, Lands and Resources. Full disclosure, I have joined the board of SeaChange. Please support its work with a donation

Next week I will share how we best support the TWN in this court action.

As ever, thanks for reading my little weekly missive – and thanks so much for good wishes and shared commitment to Mother Earth, love and hope!

All together now!
Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #326 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The strategy is required under Bill C-226, National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, a landmark bill sponsored by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May. It received Royal Assent on June 20, 2024. The Act requires the Minister of Environment to develop a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and advance environmental justice. It also required the Minister to table a report on the strategy in Parliament within two years of the Act coming into force, by June 20, 2026.

That legal deadline has now come and gone. Instead of delivering the completed strategy on time, Environment and Climate Change Canada opened consultations on a draft strategy on June 26, 2026, with feedback open until August 10, 2026.

“It is incredibly disappointing to tell communities long waiting for justice that this legal deadline  has come and gone,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands. “Parliament passed this law because Indigenous, racialized and marginalized communities are still being forced to carry the health, environmental and economic burden of pollution. The government had two years to deliver and it failed.”

The Green Party says the missed deadline is part of a larger and dangerous pattern. At the same time the federal government is legally required to prevent and address environmental racism, the Carney government is weakening environmental protections, fast-tracking fossil fuel infrastructure, sidelining affected communities, and increasing the risk that the harms of new industrial activity will once again fall hardest on Indigenous, racialized and marginalized communities.

This is the same government that signed a Canada-Alberta pipeline agreement to push a new West Coast pipeline, suspended the planned federal oil and gas emissions cap, opened the door to weakening the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, approved the Enbridge Sunrise expansion, advanced sweeping “major projects” changes that would weaken environmental review and Indigenous consultation, and pushed through pesticide rollbacks in Bill C-30.

The pattern is clear: when big industry demands speed, the Carney government moves. When communities harmed by environmental racism are owed justice, they are told to wait.

“This government moves quickly when oil and gas companies want action,” said May. “But when Indigenous, racialized and marginalized communities are legally owed a national environmental justice strategy, the deadline passes and the government is still consulting on a draft. That shows exactly whose priorities this government is serving.”

The Act recognizes that a disproportionate number of people living in environmentally hazardous areas are members of Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized communities. The practice of placing hazardous sites, including landfills and polluting industries, primarily in communities inhabited by marginalized people is a form of racial discrimination.

“The facts are clear. Some Canadians bear a disproportionate and unfair share of the harms caused by air pollution, contaminated water, toxic substances and the climate crisis,” said Dr. David Boyd, Professor, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at UBC. “That’s why Canada urgently needs a National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice that identifies practical actions that government and industry will take, with clear timelines and identification of who’s responsible for taking those actions. The vague draft strategy fails to identify any practical actions. Unless strengthened substantially, it will fail to ensure that all Canadians can enjoy their right to a healthy environment.”

The Green Party welcomes the opening of consultations and urges affected communities, Indigenous Peoples, environmental justice advocates, health organizations and members of the public to provide feedback on the draft strategy before August 10. However, Greens are warning that consultation cannot be used to cover for a missed legal obligation or delay meaningful action.

“A late consultation is not a substitute for a concrete strategy Canada committed to by passing this legislation,” said May. “Canada needs a national strategy with clear timelines, real accountability, and sustained funding.”

Environmental racism affects where people live, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the health risks they are forced to carry. Communities across Canada have fought for decades to have these harms recognized and addressed. The federal government’s failure to meet its own legal deadline sends the wrong message at the worst possible time, as Ottawa moves to bulldoze through projects that will only increase the burden on the communities this Act is designed to bring justice to. 

The Green Party of Canada demands that the federal government abide by the law and table the national strategy, ensuring it includes measurable targets, timelines, enforcement tools, public reporting, and sustained funding to support communities affected by environmental racism.

–30–

For media inquiries or to arrange an interview:media@greenparty.ca

The post Carney administration breaks legal deadline on environmental justice while fast-tracking oil and gas appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Canada-B.C. MOU attempts to mislead the public and media into thinking B.C.’s interests were meaningfully considered. Central to that appearance is public funding for an ecological disaster known as the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion. The expansion has been opposed by leading scientists, the Longshoremen’s Union, many First Nations, and the expert review conducted by the federal government itself.

This excerpt is from the federal government’s environmental review:
“[Terminal 2] would result in numerous adverse residual and cumulative effects. The proposed offsetting plan for aquatic species, totalling 29 hectares, would be insufficient to compensate for the reduction in productivity associated with a Project-induced habitat loss of 177 hectares of Roberts Bank.

The proposed terminal and marine shipping associated with [Terminal 2] would occur within Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat that is federally protected under the Species at Risk Act.

The Project would cause significant adverse and cumulative effects on Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) through a loss of legally-defined critical habitat, reduced adult Chinook salmon prey availability.”

“Notably, the panel did not consider the additional risks of making the terminal a port for dilbit-loaded tankers,” said Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May. “This project wins big with $10 billion in federal subsidies, all to grease the skids for a climate-killing pipeline.”

On May 8th, the Carney administration proposed sweeping regulatory changes to allow cabinet to exempt projects from the Species at Risk Act’s jeopardy test in certain federal economic zones. Those changes are still subject to a public consultation set to end July 22.

As well as the Roberts Bank expansion, the Eby-Carney deal includes federal public funding for controversial projects opposed by the Green Parties of B.C. and Canada: $3.5 billion for the North Coast Transmission Line, $500 million for the Red Chris mine and $3 billion for the Massey Tunnel replacement.

The North Coast Transmission Line is expected to support LNG and mining projects that carry serious environmental risks. The Red Chris mine expansion has also faced ongoing scrutiny from environmental advocates over water pollution, tailings safety and regulatory failures. The Green Party calls for full transparency on how much of the cost of these projects will be carried by the public, especially when the primary beneficiaries are industrial resource companies, and what steps the government is taking to address the significant environmental risks these projects pose.

“Despite press releases and multiple empty promises from federal Liberals, there is no private sector proponent for Alberta’s new proposed pipeline,” added May. “The federal Crown corporation TMX, already a major waste of public funds after spending $36 billion to build the Trans Mountain expansion, is now a 50 per cent owner of any new pipeline. The Alberta government holds the other 50 per cent, with private sector pipeline company Pembina’s minor involvement used as a fig leaf. Canadians need to remember that the operation of the TMX pipeline has not made even the tiniest dent in the $36 billion loss to taxpayers for the first diluted bitumen pipeline.”

The Carney-Smith announcement added that they and the Oil Sands Alliance have agreed on terms to launch the Pathways carbon capture project.

Globally, experts agree that carbon capture and storage is unproven at the scale required. Environmentalists point out that it delays real emission cuts while major polluters continue to profit and expand. Pathways cannot guarantee carbon neutrality and cannot make a new pipeline compatible with Canada’s climate commitments.

“Pathways is being used as a permission slip for endless production, more pipelines and more public money for big polluters,” May continued. “Carbon capture promises are always about buying more time for the fossil fuel industry but that is exactly what we do not have. The climate crisis is here now, and Canadians should not be asked to finance risky experiments so oil companies can keep expanding on borrowed time.”

The Green Party is once again calling on the Carney administration to abandon the proposed West Coast pipeline, protect the Southern Resident Killer Whale and other species at risk, and invest federal funds in projects that cut pollution, lower consumer costs and build long-term climate security.

“Fact check: the TMX pipeline has not met the claim of diversifying Canada’s markets. Ninety per cent of our fossil fuel exports still go to the U.S.,” said May. “Government-funded pipelines are not in Canada’s national interest. They serve only the private interests of Big Oil.

“To Mark Carney, directly and personally, I ask this: when the nation’s Canada Day celebrations are cancelled by unprecedented rainfall, much of Europe is facing a killing heat dome now moving into Atlantic Canada, a tornado rips through Winnipeg and wildfires burn through the NWT and Labrador, at what point do you remember that the climate crisis is real, that it carries enormous costs and accelerating risks to our economy, and that it requires action?”

-30-

For media inquiries or to arrange an interview: media@greenparty.ca

The post Alberta-Canada-B.C. pipeline deal is the “deal from hell” appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We adjourned Thursday, and only days later, on Monday June 22, avoiding parliamentary questions, the Carney administration announced it would accelerate the development of ‌nuclear power, setting out a goal of building up to ten new large-scale reactors, and streamlining approvals for future projects. The strategy, ⁠announced by Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson, aims to develop a new CANDU design with two nuclear reactors under construction by 2035 and five more planned or under development by 2040.

While the strategy includes no new funding, ‌the ⁠government said it will release a policy by April 2027 outlining conditions for federal support and the financing ⁠tools available for new nuclear projects. A year ago June, in debate in Parliament, I asked Minister Hodgson, following one of his now all-too-familiar cheerleading speeches for more nukes, if there would be time to review impartial studies of the pros and cons of betting billions on nuclear energy. His response was that “this government supports nuclear energy,” leaving me to conclude there would be no debate nor independent review.

Interestingly, there was a clarifying statement from the Prime Minister’s Office this week that Mark Carney had played no role in these decisions due to the ethics screen required to avoid illegal conflicts of interest. Mr. Carney has a vast and complex web of investments—far above the norm of previous PM’s. Former Clerk of Privy Council Michael Wernick called the extent of our PM’s investment portfolio “unprecedented.” When it comes to nuclear issues, it turns out Brookfield owns General Electric, which along with Hitachi and Atkins Realis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is building the Darlington project with four “small modular reactors.” Last year the government announced that on top of the one billion dollar loan from Canada’s Infrastructure Bank, the Darlington project was getting a further $2 billion, and not as a loan. I am sure Duff Conacher at Democracy Watch will verify that the PM also recused himself from that largesse, but having appointed Tim Hodgson, formerly of Hydro One and an old friend of the PM from Goldman Sachs as his Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, regardless of who was on the bridge, the ship of state was on a course for more fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

On Wednesday June 24, major projects for fast-tracking were announced, including more nuclear major projects: the Mackenzie Valley Highway Project, the Grays Bay Road and Port Project, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO)’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR)—as projects of national interest under Bill C-5.

This will be the first use of Bill C-5, passed into law, bulldozed through last June.

That same day, the feds announced approval of the truly horrific plan to dredge Burrard Inlet in Vancouver Harbour to give oil tankers up to 16 metres of draft, to load more dilbit from the TMX pipeline. Fully supported by the BC government, the decision is likely to destroy the massive work undertaken by Tsleil-Waututh Nation-TWN’s Treaty, Lands and Resources (TLR) department in conjunction with marine conservation groups like SeaChange. Collectively, 22 marine conservation groups and the TWN have completed over four years’ worth of marine restoration projects in Burrard Inlet. These projects included marine debris removal, eelgrass planting and restoration of native plants along coastlines, to restore the health of Burrard Inlet, providing habitat for fish and shellfish to allow the TWN to harvest traditional foods. It succeeded in shellfish harvesting being restored to Indigenous rights holders. Dredging will release to the environment a century’s worth of heavy metals and industrial contaminants, deep in the sediment.

Vancouver port receives permission to dredge Burrard Inlet, allow big oil tankers to increase load

Restoring Burrard Inlet with Treaty, Lands and Resources, siʔáḿθɘt School Youth, & Partner Organizations

Another First Nation has stepped up to ensure full engagement before deep geological burial of high-level nuclear waste can take place on their territory.

Ontario First Nation says nuclear waste project must meet its criteria even if fast-tracked

A Northwestern Ontario First Nation says it will determine whether a proposed nuclear waste deposit site on its territory can proceed, even though the project was just added to the federal government’s list of projects it intends to fast-track.

The first three projects that could be declared of national interest and fast-tracked for approval in the fall, as part of an infrastructure push that is key to the Carney government’s agenda, were announced by the government on Wednesday.

All three are in northern regions of the country. And the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Deep Geological Repository project is near Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. Chief Clayton Wetelainen of Wabigoon Lake told The Globe and Mail Thursday that although he supports the move to speed the project’s development, he stands by the nation’s host agreement with the NWMO, which says his nation has its own regulatory approval process based on cultural values related to land.

In all of this, what I find astonishing is that the Carney administration is picking and choosing major projects that are invariably going to be over budget and delayed while it simultaneously ignores or cancels projects with the best track record for climate benefit and economic performance. The new “Liberal” decision-makers have made the typical error of project managers of thinking the way to deliver projects on time is to eliminate regulations and cancel advance study, seeing such prudence as so much “red tape.” In this, they are the ultimate neoliberals.

I hear credible rumours that the Canada Impact Agency, what pre-Harper was the “Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency”, has had its entire support group for project panel reviews dismantled. The government has apparently concluded it will never again need to know how to organize a panel review, because there will not be any. Those of us who practiced environmental law, and experts like Stephen Hazell whose book on Environmental Assessment law in Canada is a practitioner’s bible on the subject, have long maintained that advance assessments should be seen as a key ingredient in the planning process.

Why do I find Carney’s “Build Canada Strong and Fast” approach astonishing? It goes back to a conversation I had with Mark Carney last year. Other than the occasional and random corridor conversation (and only 2 or 3 of those), I have only had two meetings with the Prime Minister. For the first, in October 2025, I thought I should make sure he knew about an astonishing book my husband, John Kidder, the voracious reader, had brought to my attention. How Big Things get Done, the Surprising Factors that Determine the Fate of Every Project.

The authors, Canadian journalist Dan Gardner and Norwegian economic geographer, Bent Flyvbjerg, known as the “world’s leading mega-project expert,” combined forces to produce an eminently readable digest of thousands of examples of projects–big and small. In fact, Flyvbjerg’s data base includes over 16,000 projects broken down into 25 project types.

His conclusions are clear. The key to a successful project is “think slow, act fast.” or as my carpenter friends always say, measure twice, cut once.

What Flyvbjerg proved, and redundantly so, is that taking time with planning avoids costly errors. The psychology of politicians with a drive to announce big things, large numbers to deadlines almost invariably leads to error. And even more amazing, the conclusion of the worst possible kinds of projects are the very ones the Carney administration is now committing to. In How Big Things Get Done, Flyvbjerg and Gardner developed a metrics-based analysis drawn from the over 16K projects studied. They boil it down for project managers to “cost risk.” And conclude (at p. 173) “At one extreme—the terrifying place where no one wants to be—we find storage of nuclear waste, hosting the Olympic Games, construction of nuclear power plants, building information technology systems and constructing hydroelectric dams. They are all classic ‘one huge thing’ projects. At the other extreme, we find five blessed types that are not subject to fattailed risks. They’re all modular…and look at solar and wind power. They’re way out there, sitting pretty.”

When I asked Mark Carney if he had heard of the book, I was amazed when he said that, not only had he heard of the book, he was so impressed with Bent Flyvbjerg that he invited him to meet with the Cabinet!

And yet, Carney and company have drawn their preferred projects—other than hosting Olympic games!—from the list of terrifying places no one wants to be.

I left the meeting obtaining one other commitment from the PM, that before public money was ever put into another mega-project like TMX, there would at least be a public and transparent cost-benefit analysis. Yet here we are—pipelines announced, hundreds of millions of dollars to “give” First Nations an equity stake in the ghastly project and billions already to the small modular reactor project in Ontario. Another one of Flyvbjerg’s warning’s is “do not be the ‘first!’” Of course, since there are no SMRs in operation anywhere in any democracy, and only two without shareable data in China and Russia. Wow! And Hodgson boasted this week, Canada will be the first.

And so it goes, the baffling mystery of the Prime Minister who reads and writes books and forgets what is in them!

And with that I leave you to enjoy your Sunday. I do want to remind you, if you are a Green Party member, to register for the upcoming special general meeting, July 4. (details in the second P.S.) The first P.S. is an email I received from Sierra Club of Canada. I was so informative, I just cut and pasted it here!

Love and thanks!

Elizabeth

P.S. #1

from Sierra Club- Connor Curtis

The Tyee just published a three-part exposé on the influence of the pro-oil & gas & big tech group Build Canada and it could not be more timely. The Federal Government seems to have unlimited resources when it comes to backing oil and gas projects, but when it comes to supporting electrification and renewables that backing ends up being hollow or a means to funnel money to oil and gas, AI, and nuclear with ties to U.S. interests. The latest example of this is the announcement of electric interties – just ahead of a pipeline proposal – which seems like a positive announcement until one realizes two things:

• Firstly, as CBC notes: “no new dollar figure will be attached to the [electric interties] announcement… Policy experts have called for building interties across the nation capable of transmitting more than 2,000 megawatts of power…. None of the projects announced on Friday approaches that scale [and, on a more personal note, Newfoundland and Labrador is once again absent according to CBC].
• As John Woodside points out on Bluesky: “Nothing against power grid interties, in fact they’re needed, but with the Alberta west coast pipeline deal coming soon it’s fair to say we’re seeing a pattern of the Carney gov timing electricity updates with pipeline updates – presumably flooding the zone to mitigate blow back.” (The PM has directly referenced the value of flooding the zone as Ecojustice notes).

Again, according to polling Canadians – including Albertans – are against public financing for a new oil pipeline. One thing is very important to note here: This pattern is NOT just the Federal Government letting the market address climate change – as lazy a strategy as that would be. This trend is also seeing the Federal Government interfering in the market: not to speed up the adoption of renewables (as would be a good public investment), but to try to manufacture demand for – and support via taxpayer dollars – oil and gas projects against renewable options.

If you’re wondering why this is happening, then I do really recommend reading that three-part series in the Tyee on the billionaire-backed plans of ‘Build Canada’ – which range from privatizing airports, to climate policy erosion, to Canadian digital passports integrated with U.S. tech giants.

P.S. # 2

The Green Party of Canada is holding a Special General Meeting (SGM) on Saturday, July 4th at 1:00 PM ET.

Members are strongly encouraged to attend. If you have already registered, thank you! If you have not, please register now. Please note that full interpretation will be available.

REGISTER

The purpose of this online meeting is to address three motions which were tabled at the November 2025 SGM. These motions will eliminate existing barriers to holding productive general meetings.

We must have at least 200 members in attendance on July 4th to achieve quorum. This is why we are asking GPC members to make a commitment to attend the meeting and finish this work.

The starting time for the meeting is:

• • 10:00 AM Pacific Time
  • 1:00 PM Eastern Time
  • 2:30 PM Newfoundland Time

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #325 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post PRESS CONFERENCE: Elizabeth May Remarks on the End of the Parliamentary Session appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post SPEECH IN THE HOUSE: Elizabeth May Speaks on Omnibus Bill C-30 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post SPEECH IN THE HOUSE: Elizabeth May Says Farewell to the House of Commons for the Summer appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS: Elizabeth May Questions the Government on Imperial Oil Spill Contamination appeared first on Elizabeth May.