I boarded the Peace Train Friday afternoon at Vancouver’s Central Station. I am travelling with peace activists on VIA Rail. John and I celebrated his birthday on the train. I will get off in Edmonton to get back to Parliament for work Monday morning. The Peace Train activists continue by rail to Ottawa where they will make their voices heard on the critical importance of peace-making. Their slogan “train is a verb", sets the frame on actively training for peace!

Across Canada, we are also collecting signatures on the International Peace Charter petition. It has closed for electronic signatures, but please print it out (below) and collect hard copy signatures from any Canadian citizen, including full address. Mail to my MP office, no postage required!

Petition to the Government of Canada

Whereas: 

• Humanity faces escalating global conflict;
• Canada has a proud tradition of international peacekeeping, diplomacy, and human rights leadership;
• The International Peace Charter is a global civil society initiative to affirm principles of peace, including, renouncing war and violence, resolving disputes through dialogue and reconciliation, advancing disarmament and redirecting resources to human development, respecting sovereignty and peoples’ right to self-determination, defending truth and countering disinformation, promoting environmental stewardship to prevent conflict, protecting human dignity and diversity, supporting fair justice and transitional accountability, and fostering collective well-being through mindfulness and reconciliation; and
• This Charter reflects Canadian values of cooperation, inclusion, and justice, and offers a unifying framework for addressing the root causes of conflict while advancing sustainable peace and security.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to formally consider, endorse, and ratify the International Peace Charter and work with Parliament, Indigenous governments, civil society, and the international community to integrate the principles of the International Peace Charter into Canadian foreign and domestic policy, ensuring Canada’s leadership role in building a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world.

This week was unusually intense in Parliament.

Monday October 19, normal parliamentary business was suspended as we marked the horrific tragedy at CFB Wainwright. Each leader spoke and then we adjourned for the day. Here are my remarks.

Tuesday was long and difficult, with a midnight sitting. My last debate, on reducing pesticide regulations, wrapped up at 12:40 AM. Wednesday, I am back to Parliament Hill by 7 am. On both days we had press conferences on C-31 and C-39.

I see a common thread through multiple pieces of legislation. I raised the re-alignment of Canadian democracy with the diminution of parliament and centralization of power in the PMO in my Friday question.

We are witnessing the restructuring of Canadian democracy by stealth, reducing the role of parliament, with an unprecedented increase in powers for the prime minister and cabinet.

C-5, C-15, C-30, C-31, and C-39 grant powers to Cabinet to set aside a wide swath of existing laws. as it sees fit.

Restructuring democracy in this way should be transparent with full debate, will we be given that opportunity?

Meanwhile, the debate on C-39 has taken a nasty turn as Liberal MPs, in particular Shannon Miedema of Halifax, accusing those who oppose C-39 of being liars.

I became aware of her Oct 7 speech through an October 17 column by Althia Raj in the Toronto Star:

Opinion | A closer look at six controversial powers inside Mark Carney’s Building Canada Strong Act

“This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign,” Liberal MP Shannon Miedema declared in the House of Commons last week.

The Halifax MP accused opposition members of lying about Bill C-39, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Building Canada Strong Act, telling them the bill does not do things it does.

“I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections,” she said.

I don’t know if Miedema read the bill. Having read and listened to MPs’ speeches, it seems many Liberals have not.

The stated goal behind C-39 is to speed up project approvals and permitting so that things get built faster. The government speaks of concurrent reviews instead of consecutive ones, limiting duplication across governments and agencies, strengthening trade corridors and supporting paperless commerce. But there is much more packed into this omnibus bill. As MPs begin six days of hearings (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Impact Assessment Act, C-69, in comparison, faced 51 days of study in the House and Senate), here are a few controversial aspects explained.

I have never seen a bill drafted to be as deceitful as this one.

— Green Party Leader Elizabeth May

C-39 makes C-5 permanent Bill C-39’s summary mysteriously does not identify a key controversial change, the removal of the five-year sunset clause imposed on C-5, the Building Canada Act, by the opposition last year. Cabinet now gets permanent powers to select what projects are in the national interest (through criteria it determines and can change), those that will be green lit regardless of the outcome of environmental reviews, and to decide whether to exempt projects from certain laws and regulations, for example, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) which prevents wildlife extinction and protects biodiversity, the Fisheries Act, which protects fish habitat and controls the amount of wastewater and industrial discharge released into Canada’s lakes and rivers, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which protects nearly all native birds in Canada.

Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin.

Keito Newman/The Canadian Press

A crisis that is already frightening enough for Canadians and Quebecers is being used to justify major legislative changes that will shake the very foundations of the temple of values that we thought were otherwise secure, and that took years to build.

— Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin

C-39 creates “regions of national interest” where environmental reviews can’t stop projects

Bill C-39 builds on C-5 by allowing cabinet to designate new “regions of national interest.” These regions will be defined by cabinet, which also decides what kind of activity can happen in them and under what criteria (which cabinet can change or remove).

A regional assessment is required before a region is designated, but the report is not binding on cabinet. There is also no requirement that the assessment consider the types of projects that could be authorized in a region, or that it covers the full geographical area of the designated region.

When the designated minister—currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc —is satisfied a project in a region of national interest meets the criteria, he must provide the project’s proponent with a document “deemed” to be every required permit and authorization (all the federal green lights). Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be adversely affected must be consulted prior to the document being issued; and reviews still happen, but they only influence a project’s conditions. They can’t find that the project is too polluting, too dangerous for endangered species, or that it will destroy crucial fish habitat and should not go ahead.

And while an impact assessment is required, C-39 eliminates the planning phase that mandates meaningful public participation. When the economic zones were first floated last spring, the government’s consultation report said Indigenous participants cautioned that “pre-approval” of projects could limit the ability of rights-holders to assert their rights within their territories and would “likely lead to litigation.”

Teme Augama Anishinabek Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier.

Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

When we’re at the table from the start, projects get built. When we are shut out, they end up in court, and nobody gets certainty.

— Teme Augama Anishinabek Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier

C-39 reduces protections for species at risk and opens the door for industry lawsuits

In May, after the Star reported the federal government was proposing to skirt the Species at Risk Act (SARA)’s jeopardy test so projects, such as the new west coast pipeline, could go ahead despite threatening the existence of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, a public outcry temporarily shelved the government’s plans.

“We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this,” Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon said. “They pushed back very strongly, and the proposal is not in this bill.”

That’s true. But C-39 still weakens protections under SARA — the law designed to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct.

Currently, activities that affect endangered species or their critical habitat need approval from either the environment, fisheries, or Parks Canada minister. Only if the minister believes all reasonable alternatives to the activity have been considered, that all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact on the species or their habitat, and that the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species, is the minister allowed to permit the activity and lay out conditions the proponent must abide by, for example, mitigation and monitoring measures.

Bill C-39 changes that in two ways. First, as noted above, if a project in a “region of national interest” meets cabinet’s criteria, SARA’s preconditions — that a project can’t jeopardize the survival of species — don’t appear to matter. This would be an end-run around the jeopardy test.

Second, C-39 obliges the responsible minister to take into account the technical, economic and practical feasibility of the conditions it considers imposing. This happens already in practice, but adding it to the law raises two issues: it risks watering down conditions and protection for threatened species, and it opens the door for industry lawsuits, if conditions are deemed too financially onerous.

The economic feasibility should help determine how an environmental obligation is achieved. It should not become a substitute for achieving the environmental outcome.

— B.C. Liberal MP Patrick Weiler

C-39 allows construction to begin on projects before an impact assessment is completed

Bill C-39 amends the Impact Assessment Act to allow a minister to permit a project proponent to do “that act or thing,” subject to potential conditions, including remediation, prior to the project receiving a decision statement from the minister. (The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission gets similar powers, though entire projects can’t be permitted this way.)

Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson’s office offered as an example, a mining project proponent granted permission to build a road before the project is approved so a construction season isn’t missed. In his speech to the House, B.C. Liberal MP Patrick Weiler called on Parliament to define the kind of work that can and can’t be done.

“It should not be irreversible, it should not prejudge the final decision or replace the assessment itself, and it should continue to respect Indigenous consultation and environmental requirements,” he said.

(C-39) will assure a weary industry that the time to build is now, and there is a path to a decision that will lead to greater investment, jobs creation and, ultimately, strengthening our economic sovereignty.

— Canadian Chamber of Commerce Senior Director Bryan Detchou

C-39 allows a designated minister to override project conditions

The new legislation also allows LeBlanc — the designated minister — to remove conditions on a project that was conditionally approved but is now listed as a project of national interest by cabinet. For example, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Project was approved in 2023 subject to 370 legally binding conditions.

In August, the government announced plans to list RBT2 as a project of national interest. This would allow the project to move forward, possibly without enacting some of the conditions intended to protect southern resident killer whales, the Chinook salmon, or the western sandpipers. By listing RBT2 as a project of national interest, not only could its conditions be removed, but it could also jump over the constraints of the Species at Risk Act’s jeopardy test.

When ministers, like LeBlanc speaking to the Senate on Oct. 6, say: “We removed the government’s ability to completely exempt projects from the application of that (Species at Risk) Act” — that is not quite accurate.

The modus operandi of the Carney government in amending federal environmental legislation, rather than doing full repeals and just owning the political fallout of that, it’s been to narrow, exempt, and build in so much discretion that they can, when they need to, for their political purposes, make the laws either not apply at all, or apply in a toothless way. And that way, they can say: ‘Well, we still have these laws.’ But what are they worth now?

— Ecojustice Program Director Charlie Hatt

C-39 cements the federal government’s ability to shut down legal strikes

Bill C-39 introduces pro-labour policies to protect truck drivers from misclassification and airport workers from having their collective agreements scrapped when a new employer takes over. To limit port disruptions, it lets employers, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), or the minister seek a single bargaining agent for smaller bargaining units. The most controversial measure — denounced by unions across the country — is the power the labour minister retains to end a strike — without a parliamentary vote.

The government sets out a path to avoid that. Parties who had a binding arbitration imposed, or who had a strike or lockout, or whose agreement ran five years or more, must begin the process earlier. The conciliation period is extended by 30 days, and the minister can appoint a special mediator who, after 21 days, reports on the issues, the parties’ positions, their participation, and the likelihood of a deal. The report will be made public, unless the parties reach an agreement.

“This is designed as a package to drive people to getting their own deals earlier and at the table,” Jobs and Families Minister Patty Hajdu told the Star. She believes public reporting will shame parties into behaving better.

If they don’t, Hajdu can use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to take measures she considers necessary, including imposing a binding resolution, but only if she believes the strike or lockout adversely affects or might adversely affect the national interest. She can consider, but is not obliged to, whether the lockout or strike has or may have a significant impact on the Canadian economy, if it’s causing or may cause any serious social disruption, or whether the direction to the Board impacts freedom of association.

The Carney government has yet to release the Charter Statement on C-39 potential effects.

Unions argue their bargaining power comes from employers knowing a strike will cause real pain; if Ottawa swoops in to ensure that doesn’t happen, their rights are diminished. In C-39’s background document, the federal government calls workers in federally- regulated sectors (ports, rail, air transportation, telecommunications, etc.) “essential” to Canada’s economic growth — raising questions whether a constitutionally protected right to strike that can’t be exercised is a right at all.

Unions hoped Ottawa would limit government intervention, instead the government’s consultation document suggests it sided with employers who wanted s.107 maintained or strengthened.

Canada’s unions fought hard for the right to strike, and we’re gonna fight equally hard to make sure that we can defend it.

— Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske

While some cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs argue there’s nothing to see in this legislation, a closer look suggests otherwise.

Bill C-39 amends 19 acts and four regulations, it repeals one law and creates a new one. It deserves careful study from Parliamentarians, whether that’s raising some of the issues outlined here, or pressing for details to ensure some of the government’s changes aren’t an attempt to limit judicial oversight or that job cuts at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans won’t mean reviews are shortchanged. This legislation isn’t a temporary Band-Aid to address the current U.S. administration’s threats. It sets up a system that may be with us for decades to come.

Many thanks to Althia Raj for such thorough journalism. It is far too rare these days. I was shocked when I read her column. It turned out Shannon’s speech was at around 8 pm on October 7. Later that day, around 11 pm, I delivered my speech. I was out of the House at 8 pm and missed her speech, so I looked it up. And it is truly dreadful. Here it is with light edits (my own).

Shannon Miedema,Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act. There is much to discuss. This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Therefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place. Members of Parliament are allowed to disagree. We can oppose and even criticize legislation. We can believe that government has gotten something wrong. That is democracy and that is our job. However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Unfortunately, we have heard quite a bit of the latter when it comes to Bill C-39. We have heard claims that this bill would eliminate environmental assessments. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate indigenous consultation. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate workers’ right to strike. It would not do that either.

With the rise of social media and short-form content, Canadians are less likely to get the full story. Complex legislation cannot be reduced to a viral slogan or a social media post, yet in an era when many Canadians get their news online, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we share is rooted in facts and not in fear. Therefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment.

I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards. This would be a change in process. Regardless of what kind of project is reviewed, all factors would need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, navigation, navigable waters and much more. Bill C- 39 does not say to forget the environment and build whatever someone wants. Nothing in the 244 pages of this piece of legislation says that we would bulldoze nature, yet those are the things that are being said outside of this House and in this House……However, standing in the House and telling Canadians that Bill C-39 would simply abolish environmental assessments is not a policy argument and it is not rooted in fact.

Long regulatory processes have a cost. It costs the government when federal employees are tasked with duplicate efforts. It costs communities that are waiting to see investment come to fruition. It costs workers who are awaiting new opportunities. It comes at a cost to Canada’s economic prosperity, which is something we have to be very focused on at this time.

My question to those who oppose this bill is as follows: Why should a federal regulatory process take longer than necessary once all of the information is on the table? I am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, but when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record….

Well, that gives you a sense of it. Like Althia Raj, I wonder if Shannon has read the bill. I was so upset. I felt I had no choice but to demand a retraction and an apology. A first- time MP she once worked for the City of Halifax developing climate programmes. She is now chair of the Environment Committee. I contacted her and explained that (in parliamentary language) she had violated my privileges and those of many other MPs. I asked her to apologize. She said she would think about it. On Monday we adjourned without a chance for me to raise the issue. On Tuesday, I alerted the Speaker. It is an essential element of a point of privilege that the point be raised as quickly as possible. He understood that an apology, short of raising a point of privilege, would be preferable. But by Wednesday, I knew I had to make the point of privilege and call Shannon to account publicly. This was not an easy decision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment on a question of privilege arising from remarks made in this place by the hon. member for Halifax on October 7. I have to admit that I do so with sadness, because I much prefer, as a parliamentarian in this place, particularly as a woman parliamentarian, to encourage younger women in politics. In my 15 years as a member of Parliament, this is the first time I have risen on a question of privilege, but I have given one hour’s notice of my intention to rise on this day on a question of personal privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 48(1).

I now do so because of the remarks that were made. Let me frame this issue in terms of the offence. The offence is one of imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what a member is not allowed to do directly. In reviewing the hon. member for Halifax’s second reading speech on Bill C-39, which I am sure the Speaker shall do, I do believe she violated my privileges and those of others by imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, which is basically accusing other members of lying.

I will quote from her speech, in which she said, “This bill [Bill C-39] has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.” This can only be understood as a direct attack on the honesty—

(At this point I was interrupted by Chris Bittle Liberal from St. Catherines who accused me of more disinformation! This gets recorded in Hansard as: An hon. member.)

Oh, oh!

So I said, “Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way to not heckle me or repeat the same disparaging remarks that gave rise to this question of personal privilege in the first place.

The Speaker: To the hon. member for St. Catharines, we are on a question of privilege, which the Chair would very much like to hear and understand.

(and he gave me back the floor:)

Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. Had the hon. member said there was misinformation being spread, I would not be standing here right now. However, as a prominent member in this place and as someone who practised environmental law, has read Bill C-39, takes issue with specific points and ties those points to the text of the legislation, it is deeply offensive to be called a liar through the smear of a “wild disinformation campaign”.

It is the job and duty of members of Parliament to study legislation and suggest ways in which legislation can be improved to allow the public to know what our concerns are. In other words, vigorous debate giving rise to disagreement is not a violation of privilege, but to essentially smear the reputation of any member who stands in this place, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who was specifically referenced in the member for Halifax’s speech as lying about the impact on labour rights, is.

I repeated those same critiques about part 3 of the bill. This is an omnibus bill with many sections. I will try to be concise about this, but the hon. member repeated that this bill is subject to a “wild disinformation campaign”, and she felt it her duty to separate fact from fiction. To be accused of lying and of having motives of disinformation is deeply offensive.

In reference to our parliamentary privileges, and I specifically look at Standing Order 18 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, there is no question that imputing deliberate deceit and dishonourable motives to parliamentarians, who are fulfilling their constitutional duty to scrutinize legislation, crosses the line. As well, Standing Order 18, and this is established in chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explicitly prohibits any reflection upon a member’s personal or professional integrity, as that obstructs our ability to discharge parliamentary duties without improper interference. There is a very large difference between opposition and deceit.

I did make attempts to ask the hon. member to apologize so I would not find myself standing here and publicly calling out her scurrilous and completely dishonourable speech. In this case, I would conclude by asking that there be a ruling that, in the opinion of this House, the remarks made by the member for Halifax accusing members of a campaign of disinformation constitute an unparliamentary reflection on members’ integrity and that she be directed to unequivocally withdraw the remarks and apologize.

And that is where it sits this weekend.

I hope there will be a clear ruling and an apology.

But it does remain a concern that opposition and criticism of this dreadful omnibus bill gives rise to attacks on my character.

We wait…

We have a daunting task as even the most rudimentary aspects of projects in the “national interest” do not receive even cursory scrutiny as to whether they meet and economic case, much less who C-39 and C-5 together trample Indigenous rights, nature and climate.

Please do continue, as you do, spreading the word, sharing this letter and writing your own letters to the editor.

I am so grateful for your support.

Love and thanks, Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #340 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Constituent Advocate
Location: Constituency Office in Sidney, BC

Work environment: Hybrid, 24 hours weekly (two thirds in office, one third remote)

Political affiliation: Green Party of Canada by association but the work performed is non-partisan service.  

Job Description 

The office of Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands is currently seeking a qualified candidate to fill the Constituent Advocate position.

• Primary focus is managing and solving constituency cases:
  – Receives request from Constituent and follow up with an in-person meeting to assess needs;
  – Sets up a file for Constituent and inform Member (potentially set up meeting time for member and Constituent);
  – Takes action on Constituent concerns;
  – Track and document all communications related to the file (with Constituent, Minister offices and with Service Canada);
  – Keeps Constituent up to date on developments.
• Performs research as needed by Member and for the purpose of resolving constituency concerns/issues.
• Assists Member as needed for special projects (events).
• Assists with phones and reception duties if needed.

About the role:

Constituent Advocates have a primary responsibility to support and assist Constituents with access to federal services such as Canada Revenue Agency, Immigration Canada, Service Canada (re: Employment, Federal Funding)

Top reasons to apply:

Join Elizabeth May’s team if you enjoy helping people. Constituents require help navigating federal bureaucracy with important personal matters, often time sensitive. The work is rewarding and meaningful. The team is professional and experienced. We offer generous paid time off and provide a flexible and supportive work environment. Medical and Dental benefits included. 

Qualifications

• Experience in field of social work. A post-secondary degree in social work will be an asset. 
• Strong interpersonal skills, experience working with clients to settle conflicts
• Familiarity in navigating Federal agencies such as Revenue Canada, Immigration Canada, Service Canada. 
• Familiarity with local issues of the Saanich-Gulf Island, Vancouver Island. 
• Experience at working both independently and in a team-oriented, collaborative environment is essential.
• Ability to handle, and to conform to changes in casework; respond quickly to urgent cases. A strong sense of urgency. 
• Capable of working under pressure in a fast-paced environment. 
• Good computer skills in Microsoft Office, CRM software experience is not required but will be an asset.

Additional information

Members of Parliament are individual employers who are responsible for recruiting, hiring and managing the employees who help them carry out their parliamentary duties. Terms and conditions of employment vary from one MP’s office to another.

If you have an accommodation request, require material in an accessible format, or need additional support with the application process, please contact Recruitment and Selection Services at HOCCareers-CarrieresCDC@parl.gc.ca. 

We thank all candidates for their application. Only selected candidates will be contacted for next steps. 

This posting will remain advertised until all business requirements are met. Applicants who meet the qualifications may be contacted for further assessment at any time.

The post Job Opportunity – Constituent Advocate appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Canadian Parliamentarians welcome Afghan colleagues to Parliament Hill

OTTAWA, ON — Today, five Canadian Members of Parliament from across party lines are welcoming Afghan Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, marking an important moment of solidarity with those who have fought for democracy, human rights and the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Working with human rights activist Corey Levine – the driving force behind this initiative – MPs Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois), Elizabeth May (Green Party), Heather McPherson (New Democratic Party), Marcus Powlowski (Liberal Party), and Alex Ruff (Conservative Party) along with former MP Leah Taylor Roy (Liberal Party) collaborated across party lines to help bring these Afghan parliamentarians to safety in Canada.

Location: Foyer of West Block

Time: Approx. 1:30 PM ET

At a time when the world is increasingly dangerous and divided, their presence in Canada is a bright shining light.

“In a world that too often feels defined by division, conflict and uncertainty, today is a reminder of what solidarity and cooperation can achieve,” said Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, MP of Lac Saint Jean. “We are grateful to have our Afghan colleagues here with us, and we look forward to continuing to work together to make real change for people here and around the world.”

“We are so pleased to welcome our Afghan colleagues to Parliament today,” said Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich – Gulf Islands. “When people from different political parties come together and put our differences aside to help people who are in danger, we can accomplish extraordinary things.”

The situation facing women and girls in Afghanistan remains horrific with gender apartheid. The Taliban have systematically stripped women and girls of fundamental rights, including access to education, employment, public life and freedom of movement. The United Nations has described Afghanistan as the only country in the world where women and girls face such far-reaching restrictions on their rights.

“As Canadians, we have a moral obligation to do everything within our power to protect and advance women’s rights, both here at home and around the world,” said Heather McPherson, MP for Edmonton Strathcona. “We cannot accept a world where women and girls are erased from public life. We must stand with the women of Afghanistan and with those who continue to fight for their rights and freedoms.”

The visit provides an opportunity for Canadian and Afghan parliamentarians to meet, share experiences and continue working together on behalf of people in Afghanistan, Canada and around the world.

“Six Canadian MPs from different political parties, inspired by Ms. Corey Levine, came together to help make this possible. That is what Parliament can look like when we focus on what unites us and get to work,” said Alex Ruff, MP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. “We may not agree on everything, but we can work together to get things done. We have already seen what is possible, and I look forward to continuing that work.”

“Our Afghan colleagues have shown extraordinary courage in standing up for their communities and for democratic values,” said Marcus Powlowski, MP for Thunder Bay-Rainy River. “Their presence here is a reminder that solidarity matters, that Canada can make a difference.”

-30-

Media Contact:
Office of Heather McPherson, MP for Edmonton Strathcona
heather.mcpherson@parl.gc.ca

The post Canadian Parliamentarians welcome Afghan colleagues to Parliament Hill appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We awoke on Thursday to the – not unexpected – news that Carney has decreed the new dilbit pipeline from Alberta, running along largely the same route as Trudeau’s TMX pipeline, but south along the Fraser River and out to a new oil tanker port on Roberts Bank, to be the first “project of national interest” as legislated by bulldozer in June 2025 under C-5.

Here is the release from PMO, and – ta-da- drum roll please, the new name! “Pacific Link.”

Prime Minister Carney lists the West Coast Oil Pipeline, now known as Pacific Link, as a project of national interest to unlock Canada’s full potential as a global energy superpower. Prime Minister’s Web Site (https://pm.gc.ca/

October 1, 2026

Fort McMurray, Alberta

“Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced that the Government of Canada is officially listing the new West Coast Oil Pipeline, now known as Pacific Link, as a project of national interest.

“Canada and Alberta will share equal ownership of Pacific Link. Indigenous communities will be offered a minimum of 10% ownership interest, financed through Canada and Alberta’s Indigenous Loan Guarantee Programs. Pembina Pipeline Corporation is a private sector investor and is offering its expertise to project development, which is being led by the Trans Mountain Corporation – the company that just built the largest oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast. The pipeline will follow a southern route which protects British Columbia’s North Coast and avoids highly sensitive ecosystems, including the Great Bear Sea.

“Over the next year, the MPO, supported by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), will lead the federal review process and consultations with all stakeholders on the conditions for this project – including the ownership, benefits, respect for Indigenous rights, environmental protections, and local hiring and oversight – with Indigenous Peoples involved from the start. The MPO will work to finalise those conditions by September 1, 2027, clearing the way to get shovels in the ground. This means that as the project proponents work over the next year to develop a final concept – from community consultations to route mapping, ecological surveys, cost estimates, procurement, and workforce planning – they will do so with confidence that the federal government supports this project. This will transform the way Canada builds major infrastructure by giving investors and builders the certainty they need to drive projects forward.”

Stunning these masters of the universe think they can claim by avoiding our north coast, they are avoiding ecologically sensitive areas! As though the Salish Sea is not ecologically sensitive! Thanks to Washington State for pushing back. The release goes on to claim this diversifies markets by opening a route to Asia… which is only relevant if markets in Asia want dilbit. So far, even after building TMX using the same lie that this was about getting dilbit to Asia, 90% of all Canada’s fossil fuel exports go to the U.S. And of the amount we ship to China, somewhere between a third to a half is used to pave roads. Once they take out the diluent and ship it back to Canada (in the US there is a south to north pipeline for returning the diluent) what they have is tar suitable for paving roads in China. But I guess PMO thinks being a “Tar super-power” sounds less nation-building than “Energy Superpower.”

John’s letter below was published September 29 in the Globe and Mail.

“Most Canadians support government efforts to reduce our dependence on the United States by making our economy more resilient and diverse. But increasing Canada’s share of European and Asian markets for bitumen and liquefied natural gas would work against these goals.

“The U.S. is determined to dominate the market: It seized control of Venezuelan oil, which in time would replace Canadian bitumen. And fossil energy markets in Asia and Europe are forecast to decline as more efficient renewables are rapidly deployed.

“Increasing competition with an undifferentiated product, in a declining market against a dominant player intending economic “conquest,” would be a failing strategy. It would embed Canada deeper with the U.S., reducing our resilience and autonomy. The opportunity cost of forgoing alternative long-term investments seems high.

“Anyone who’s raised venture money knows Canadian bankers are famously risk averse. Not so Mark Carney. This time, that’s not a good thing.”

John Kidder Ashcroft, B.C.

Meanwhile, dreadful BC premier David Eby joined Carney to announce doubling the Kitimat, B.C., LNG export facility, approving a second phase at the country’s first large-scale LNG terminal. They attempted to green wash the announcement with a second phase of Ocean Protection. “$1.2 billion in new investments to safeguard Canadian waters from increased tanker traffic, including developing a response plan to protect whales and other marine mammals from oil spills.”

As if this government understood a single thing about the behaviour of diluted bitumen in the ocean environment. Please God we will never find out how devastating a spill would be.

I want to shift gears to some inspiring news! And salute the Seniors for Climate Action and the Climate Witness caravan.

I like the story above for the good coverage and the photo of seniors blocking the road in rocking chairs. Eleven were arrested in all. A number had traveled from BC, including local Green Yves Parizeau. Arrests started Tuesday, but I was stuck in Parliament. For the protest on Wednesday, I was able to get out and cheer them on, stopping to greet friends like Lyn Adamson and Michael Polyani from Toronto on their rocking chairs. I told the Parliamentary security guards all around that these were my friends and if they needed to get into the building please to help them and take good care.

They did a great job and got quite a lot of media coverage, as did David Suzuki who joined the caravan launch and in Ottawa.

On Wednesday in Question Period, I thanked the caravan and asked if the government planned to present a business case before approving the pipeline. Clearly not.

For Friday’s question, I Zoomed from Toronto where I had received an award the night before for support for organic agriculture and retailing wonderful organic products. So nice of them. Anyway, this time I tried to get an answer about the PM’s investment summit. Nothing in my question was understood by the parliamentary secretary who gave the non-answer. Friday’s QP Question.

And so it goes!

For today, if you can please join the Old Growth rally! From 1 to 3 p.m., people from across the province will gather for Hands Off Old Growth rallies.

From the organizers:

“The rallies are intended to send a clear message to all parties and candidates in the upcoming provincial election that B.C. residents are united in their demand for protection of our rapidly diminishing stands of old-growth forests.

“The rally at the B.C. Legislature in Victoria will include speakers, music, and a giant community canvas where people can trace their hands in solidarity. But at its heart, this rally is not about slogans. It is about love for the living world that sustains us, grief for what’s been lost, and our responsibility to save what’s left.

“In an over-heating world, protecting the last ancient forests is not sentimental. Old growth and primary forests are worth more standing: for the climate, for the water, for the web of life, for the tourists who come from around the world, and for the generations who will ask what we did when there was still time.”

Thanks to everyone who shows up to protest for climate- for old growth- for Indigenous rights.

And thanks to the growing list of star candidates for the BC Greens!!! When will the media notice? Have a look!

So, for now, much love and thanks!!

See you same time next week!

Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #339 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

And what a week! Parliament opened on Monday with the Liberals dropping a monster bill – C-39. It is another omnibus bill – 232 pages – changing the Canada Labour Code to reduce Labour’s right to strike and amending the Species at Risk Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, CEPA, the Fisheries Act… I will not list them all – TWENTY bills amended. In June 2025 they forced through C-5, the Build Canada Act. That law is still in place allowing any and all environmental laws to be ignored if a project is deemed to be in the “national interest”. Now this bill, the “Build Canada Strong Act”, keeps all those dreadful exemptions and fast-tracking from the 2025 Build Canada Act, and adding “Regions of National Interest” or as some environmental groups are terming them “sacrifice zones”, where again the laws will not apply.

For a solid summary of C-39, I recommend this press release from West Coast Environmental Law.

As you probably know, I read every word of every bill brought to Parliament. I’m pretty sure I’m the only MP who does – all the others have party people who look at such things and tell their MPs what the bill means and how good (government) or bad (opposition) it is. So, few MPs notice authoritarian practices sneaking in, and if they do, they’re instructed how to react.

Hardly anyone noticed how the new “Build Canada Strong” Act (C-39) amends the (presumably weaker?) “Build Canada Act” (C-5), presumably, then, to make it stronger.

What makes Build Canada Act into Build Canada Strong? It eliminates the one limitation on unbridled power – the “sunset clause”. The powers granted to Cabinet would end after five years. The sunset clause was a tacit admission that Cabinet’s power to order that a project was “in the national interest” and could therefore get past all sorts of environmental and economic assessments and restrictions was a risky allocation of executive power and might need an exit option.

So now it’s gone. It makes me so angry John heard me shout from the other room. This substantive power grab is not even mentioned in the summary of changes in the legislation, as if it were of no significance at all. I am getting weary and angry at the continuous erosion of the powers of Parliament and the anti-Trump rationale for taking on the same sort of executive powers we see every day in the US – we hear about the US changes in Canadian media, next to nothing about corresponding trends here.

While Liberal MP after Liberal MP gets up to dutifully repeat talking points about how this is all just to remove duplicative procedures, it is far more than that. One MP even had the gall to state in his speech that the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is not touched in C-39, ignoring all the sections that amend SARA! Many acts are now changed so that wherever conditions were added to a project approval, now those conditions cannot be added unless “economic” and “feasible”.

This is a Trumpian power grab and now permanent.

I will have my chance to speak on the bill when Parliament resumes Monday October 5. We are shut this week due to the stat holiday for the national observance of the Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Three cheers for AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak for pointing out that bulldozing approvals in under a year looks like bulldozing over Indigenous rights, as does pushing the bill through without adequate consultation.

That was Monday, and then as we all know on Tuesday, BC Premier David Eby called a snap election two whole years early. And unlike Horgan when he pulled the same trick, Eby already has a majority. As I wrote in last week’s missive, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) had urged Eby NOT to call a provincial election during the time before BC local elections take place on October 17. Hopes are high for Green candidate Pete Fry to be the next mayor of Vancouver. He is in the lead right now, but we cannot take anything for granted! I really thought the pressure from the UBCM would be a sufficient caution for the BC NDP to wait, and even if calling a snap election years early, at least wait until November. No dice. Eby is breaking new records for cynical, opportunistic behaviour. At this rate, he is going to give politicians a bad name!

Local BC Green candidates are creating real excitement. Here in Saanich-Gulf Islands, I have mixed emotions. Rob Botterell, my own MLA, announced he will not run again. He always said he was in it for one term. Thanks to Eby that term was too short! But the great news is that our local Green candidate is BC Green leader Emily Lowan! If you live in SGI, please help out any way you can! If you are willing to join me and knock on doors, make some calls, help deliver signs, or help in the office, please fill out BC Greens Volunteer Request form. And great news, Emily Lowan’s campaign office is the same one we used for my re-election campaign last year; 9776 Fourth Street in Sidney!.

Please Donate to Emily’s Campaign

Lawn signs are on order. If you want a lawn sign, here’s the link to Request a Lawn Sign. https://bcgreens.ca/request-a-lawn-sign/

For any other questions, email teamlowan@bcgreens.ca

And if you know someone willing to step up and run anywhere in BC, please have them email nominations@bcgreens.ca. I am very excited about the candidates who are offering to run — one of whom is not yet ready to announce — one of BC’s most inspiring Indigenous leaders. BC Greens want to have a full slate, so it is a scramble, but the progress is amazing!

This Sunday I am off to Galiano for my regular non-partisan community meeting. Emily Lowan will be at the Salt Spring Island Apple Festival at Fulford from 10-11.

And in case you want to see my opening salvo from Monday’s press conference, here you go:

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/elizabeth-may-on-green-party-priorities-govts-new-economic-bill?id=22240d6b-88c2-4152-8524-60c2a5d45b1d

All for now! Sending you love and thanks for your support through these exhausting times!

Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #338 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“I am so pleased to announce that we have found an excellent new location!” says Elizabeth May. “The new office will make it easier for residents to connect with me and my team and access the support they need. We look forward to welcoming residents to our new location.”

Elizabeth May is excited about the change and looks forward to welcoming even more constituents into the office. With this newer and larger space, we intend to offer free meeting space for groups to gather as needed.

The new office, at 111-2506 Beacon Avenue in Sidney, is in an area with higher pedestrian traffic, is easier to find and provides parking. Located on the first floor of the Landmark Building, it is accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities.

The current office at 1-9711 Fourth Street will be closed to the public for walk-ins during the week of September 28, but will remain operational by phone and email. Constituency services will continue uninterrupted.

MP Elizabeth May looks forward to holding an office opening event later in fall 2026. Until then, everyone is welcome to visit.

New office effective October 5, 2026:
111-2506 Beacon Avenue
Sidney, BC V8L 1Y2

The post New Constituency Office Location appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“I am so pleased to announce that we have found an excellent new location! Our constituency office will be moving to 111-2506 Beacon Ave, Sidney, BC V8L 1Y2, effective October 5, 2026,” Elizabeth May, “The new office will make it easier for residents to connect with me and my team and access the support you need. We look forward to welcoming residents to our new location.”

Elizabeth May is excited for the change and looks forward to welcoming even more constituents into the office. With this newer and larger space, we intend to offer free meeting space for groups to gather as needed. The new office is in a higher pedestrian traffic area, easier to find and provides parking. The office is also on the first floor of the Landmark Building and is accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities.

The current office at 1-9711 Fourth Street will be closed to the public for walk-ins for the week of September 28th but remains operational by phone and by email. Constituency services will continue uninterrupted.

MP Elizabeth May looks forward to holding an office opening event later in Fall 2026. Until then, everyone is welcome to visit.

Contact information remains the same:
Office hours: Tuesday-Friday from 10am-4:00pm PT
Tel: 250-657-2000 / 1-800-667-9188 (Gulf Islands) Fax: 250-657-2004 elizabeth.may.c1@parl.gc.ca

Meet Elizabeth May

Constituents can seek help with access to Federal Government Services such as:

• Immigration/passport-related inquiries
• Canada Pension Plan / Old Age Security
• Employment Insurance
• Veterans Affairs
• Canada Revenue federal matters

CONTACT INFORMATION:
Debra Eindiguer, Chief of Staff
Office of Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands
debra.eindiguer.827@parl.gc.ca
c: 613-240-8921

The post Elizabeth May MP announces new constituency office location appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Tomorrow Parliament will re-open. Today I am moderating a panel of climate change writers, specifically wildfire writers through non-fiction, novel and poetry at the Eden Mills Literary festival and then will take the train from Toronto to reach Ottawa later tonight. It will be a busy week.

Of course, while constantly busy, I do not have a patch on the Prime Minister who is fairly frequently on jets from one summit to global event to another. I confess to being jealous of him for getting vacations. I was supposed to have a week off in August, but then he called those August 31 by-elections and spent 10 days in Tuscany on holiday. I do understand, he is the Prime Minister and entitled to get a vacation now and then! I am envious of him today, visiting Saint Pierre and Miquelon with PM Macron. A decade ago, I tried to convince Justin Trudeau that he should meet with Macron on Saint Pierre. Better late than never! Newfoundland’s proximity to Europe is worth emphasizing. Cate and I, and our amazing tiny dog Xo, had a lovely visit there ages ago (well before John Kidder was in my life.) I loved it. Imagine going to France on a one hour ferry trip from Fortune, Newfoundland and Labrador!

While I am appalled by much of our Prime Minister’s domestic policy and reversals, I do not doubt that he is elevating Canada’s role in the world. I admire his turn of phrase. That Canada is not seeking to be a super power “with better manners.” I would have applauded had I been in Strasbourg! On Monday, he will not be in Parliament. But I will, and I will raise concerns from constituents I heard in the eight community meetings we have held since Labour Day. One last community meeting for this round will be a week from today on Galiano Island. Due to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Parliament is adjourned the week of September 28.

That week, an event of upheaval will happen in my life, but it is a minor thing in the scheme of things. We have to move our constituency office. We have been so lucky to have had the same office for 15 years! But the landlord has other plans, and we have to be out of our space by October. The constituency office is moving from Fourth Street to the end of Beacon, through the breezeway off Beacon to a great ground floor space in the Landmark building. To manage the move, we will be closed the week of September 28. We will be available by phone! The new space is a lot more expensive, so I will be writing some of you by regular mail to ask for financial help. (If you want details of where and how to help, please reply to this email to the Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens info@sgigreenparty.ca address.) We need to raise funds for a more robust internship program on Parliament Hill as the big jump in local rent wipes out a full staff position in my Ottawa office. More to come!

Meanwhile, looking closer to home, it seems likely Premier David Eby will opportunistically seize the moment to call a snap BC provincial election. As even national observers of BC politics will have noticed, the Conservative Party of BC is circling the drain. Newly elected leader and former federal MP, Kerry-Lynne Findlay has lost nearly a dozen MLAs – some quitting to sit as independents; others forming a new right-wing party. The Union of BC Municipalities, meeting this week, passed an emergency resolution calling on the Premier NOT to call an election that would overlap with, and over-shadow, critical local elections. I find it astonishing, though I should be used to it by now, that media coverage of the split in the Conservative party and cynical opportunity for the NDP manages to all but completely ignore the Green Party with 25 year old leader Emily Lowan and two elected, strong and capable MLAs! Please be prepared to jump in and help our BC Greens in any way you can! To my BC readers, want to run to make sure every BC voter has a chance to have a great Green candidate to vote FOR!?

Friday was the deadline for comment on the proposed new pipeline for dilbit across BC. I am sharing the link with you here. I wrote over 5,000 words, but there are so many details and I am determined to force the Liberals to, at least, make a cost-benefit analysis public before wasting another $34+ billion to build a pipeline, threatening ecosystems, endangered species, the climate and Indigenous rights. I hope, if you have the time, you will read it.

And, also on Friday, the government launched another consultation, this time to fast track deep geological disposal of high level nuclear waste, deadline for comment October 26:

“Ottawa, ON, September 18, 2026 – Canada is advancing the critical infrastructure needed to build a stronger, more sustainable, and more independent economy. Investing in nation-building infrastructure is essential to strengthening economic resilience, enhancing energy security, and creating long-term prosperity by connecting communities, supporting industry, enhancing sustainability, and attracting investment.

Today, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs, Internal Trade and One Canadian Economy, announced the publication of a notice in the Canada Gazette for the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project, marking the next step in considering whether the project should be listed under Schedule 1 of the Building Canada Act (the Act) as a project of national interest.”

To the notion that we can build this kind of project fast, I will keep recommending the Carney cabinet read How Big Things Get Done.

I know they have it at Tanners Books if you are in Sidney. It is worth a read. Based on a database of 16,000 projects, it established that the projects most likely to go off the rails, cost WAY more and overshoot timelines by orders of magnitude can be predicted. One they cite is any project for deep disposal of nuclear waste. Funny, the Prime Minister told me he had read it. Maybe, like his own book Values, he needs to read it again.

Have a great week..and as ever Illegitimi non carborundum – which is well known and not Latin, but sounds good anyway. I prefer Stan Rogers…whenever the smiling bastards are lying to me… and as John Kidder says “do not let the liars win!”:

And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Rise again, rise again – though your heart it be broken
And life about to end
No matter what you’ve lost, be it a home, a love, a friend.
Like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

You can find and sign this petition here.

Love Elizabeth

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #337 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Prior to any discussion of this specific project described as the “West Coast Oil Pipeline” As a former practising lawyer and as a Member of Parliament who respects the process of statutory interpretation, I wish to put on record the following.

It is important to note that this is the first use of the Building Canada Act (formerly known as C-5) to be used to designate a project of national interest.

Therefore, it is precedent setting.

The process by which the Privy Council reaches its decision should create a predictable pathway for future projects, and decision makers.

So far, I submit, this government is not off to a good start.

The project description in the notice on the Canada Gazette is factually incorrect. More on that error below.

Ideally, the decision-makers should have clear direction from the law creating the process. Unfortunately, that is difficult as former Bill C-5 only provides the illusion of guidance.

First to the definitions.

The definition of “national interest project” is tautological:

‘national interest project means a project named in Schedule 1.”

The excerpts below make it clear that while the word “criteria” is used, the term is not used in a usual sense to guide a decision. Criteria are provided following the decision. While the word “factors” is used, with the listing of areas of critical public concern, as in the use of the word “criteria,” there are no required elements of a proposal to be satisfied. The “factors” are only suggestions and not requirements. Had they been requirements, the legislation at section 6, would have used the word “shall” and not “may.”

National interest
4.1 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, for the purposes of section 5, define national interest.

Criteria
(2) In order to promote transparency and predictability, an order made under subsection (1) must set out specific criteria that must be met by the proponent of a project in order for the project to be found to be in the national interest.

Report
(3) If an order is not made within 15 days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must, within five sitting days of the end of that period, cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report that sets out the reasons for the delay and the expected timeline for the making of the order.

Power of Governor in Council
5 (1) If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a detailed description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

Factors
(6) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1) or (4) in respect of a project, the Governor in Council may consider any factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can
(a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
(b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
(c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;
(d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and
(e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

These flaws, consisting of a complete lack of guidance to Privy Council, leave the Cabinet with unrestricted political discretion in deciding what is in the “national interest.” The process by which this legislation was rushed through parliament has resulted in a dramatic diminution in the role of Parliament- the Legislative branch of government and a massive increase in the power of the Executive branch – the Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet. Due to a programming motion brought forward by the governing party and supported by the Official Opposition, Bill C-5 went from Second Reading through committee, clause by clause, Report Stage and Third Reading between Monday June 16, 2025 to Friday June 20, 2025. Senate did as instructed and the bill had Royal Assent without proper study.

This decision will be the first under the Building Canada Act. As such, it would be wise for the Privy Council to establish by precedent what the Cabinet will require of all future projects to be considered in the “national interest.”

The Green Party strongly urges that any project must be supported by an independent assessment of the economic viability of the project. A cost-benefit analysis must be transparent and verified by a third party, such as the Parliamentary Budget Office demonstrating that it is a project that will finish on time and in the black.

Such an analysis is consistent with what we demand of regulations. The Treasury Board’s Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, effective September 1, 2018, says:

“Canada’s regulatory policy, set out in the Cabinet Directive on Regulation (the directive), requires departments to analyze the costs and benefits of proposed federal regulations. This Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis (the policy) outlines mandatory requirements for departments when undertaking such analysis as part of a Regulatory Impact Analysis.

This policy is supported by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS’s) Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide, which provides detailed guidance on how to analyze the costs and benefits of proposed regulations.

This sets out a template the Privy Council should adopt as a mandatory pre-condition to any project being listed on Schedule 1 as in the “national interest.”

Especially, as in this case, where public funds are underwriting the project, taxpayers need to know if the project is good value for money. Previous history with political decisions to spend tens of billions on a pipeline without such analysis should serve as a cautionary tale for decision-makers now. The TransMountain pipeline, built by the Crown corporation created for this purpose spend over $34 billion in public funds. While it is reported the TMX “makes money” it has not yet transferred funds to the government sufficient to pay the annual interest costs on the debt on the $34 billion spent in its construction.

Similarly, the public was told the TMX pipeline would diversity our fossil fuel energy exports. However, the Spring Economic Statement in 2026 confirmed that 90% of Canada’s fossil fuel exports still go to the United States. Most of the tankers loaded with diluted bitumen head south to the USA, not East to Asia.

Prior to deciding a second pipeline to British Columbia is in the “national interest” there must be a transparent cost-benefit analysis that examines the market for unprocessed bitumen in other markets.

As Peter Nicholson (a former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada and currently serves as Chair of the Board of the Canadian Climate Institute) wrote recently https://sagecanada.substack.com/p/a-pipeline-isnt-a-field-of-dreams “If you build it..” it is not at all clear that there will be sufficient production of bitumen from Alberta to keep the proposed pipeline at 100% capacity.

“The central question is not whether Canada would like another west coast pipeline. It’s whether the oil industry itself sees a commercial opportunity large enough to justify building, and filling, one. A pipeline is not a “Field of Dreams”: it cannot be built simply on the hope that production will eventually materialize. Before committing tens of billions of dollars, investors need confidence that sufficient oil will be available over several decades to generate an adequate return. If there is no convincing answer to that question, the pipeline should not be built.” Peter Nicholson.

Most promotion of the pipeline is predicated on the false claim that Alberta’s production of bitumen has been hampered by federal regulations of various types. This is not the case. In fact, Alberta’s bitumen production is at an all time high.

The volatility of oil prices due to war and other Geo-political stresses must also be assessed. Bitumen is an inherently expensive form of fossil fuel to produce, while also of inherently low value. It remains a solid that must undergo an expensive upgrading process to become synthetic crude. It is only synthetic crude and not bitumen that can be refined. When world oil prices drop below $80/barrel, it is a losing proposition to mine bitumen.

So too should the impact of alternatives for the Canadian economy be assessed. Primary should be consideration of economic impacts for Canada in upgrading and refining raw bitumen in Canada for use in Canada, enhancing self-sufficiency and jobs within Canada. Failure to consider such domestic production alternatives is astonishing given the down-side economic risks, and prior to consideration of other negative impacts.

2. Error in Project Description in Canada Gazette

The failure to accurately describe the project is deeply concerning, with both market, economic and non-economic impacts in any analysis.

The “West Coast Oil Pipeline” was posted in the Canada Gazette. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2026/2026-08-01/html/sup1-eng.html

I have bolded the factual error in the Canada Gazette.

The Canada Gazette published a notice on August 1, 2026, to consider listing the West Coast Oil Pipeline Project as a national interest project under the Building Canada Act (details via the Major Projects Office).

Project Overview

• Route: Runs approximately 1,250 km from Bruderheim, Alberta, to a deepwater marine loading facility near Delta, British Columbia.

• Capacity: Transports up to one million barrels of crude oil per day.

• Cost: Estimated between $35.2 billion and $43.7 billion.

• Leadership: Advanced via a partnership involving Trans Mountain Corporation, the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, and Pembina Pipeline

The Project Description from the Government of Alberta makes it clear the product to be shipped is diluted bitumen. The market analysis for the product being shipped is very different for crude oil than for dilbit (diluted bitumen). Crude oil has a much larger range of options to reach refineries that can process crude. Diluted bitumen is far less attractive to industry destinations. Dilbit is essentially a solid at its terminus. The Diluent, used only to allow a solid to be shipped by pipe, is removed after shipment. The solid bitumen must be upgraded to synthetic crude in order to be refined. The Koch brothers in the United States built up refining capacity to handle Venezuelan heavy oil, with processes that also work for oil sands bitumen. Canada used to have 40 refineries. We now have 17. Few of them can upgrade bitumen. So any market review of the viability of the proposed project must consider which refineries are capable of upgrading bitumen. Approximately one third to one half of the bitumen Canada is currently shipping to China is used to pave roads.

In addition to market considerations, shipping dilbit instead of crude oil has significant impacts in the event of a spill. Oil spill response technologies have been designed to manage spills of conventional crude, no technology exists to eliminate the devastating impacts of an oil spill, but conventional crude is more likely to be contained in floating oil booms. Dilbit on the other hand behaves quite differently. The first spill of dilbit that identified this difference was the 2010 freshwater spill in the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge made numerous errors in response to the break in its pipe, all documented by the US National Transportation Safety Board. The dilbit separated. The heavier bitumen sank to the river floor while the “diluent” volatilized into the atmosphere, making people in adjacent neighbourhoods unwell.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA10MP007.aspx

In 2016 the Royal Society of Canada literature review found that there was insufficient science that dilbit can be cleaned up. DFO studies have found it will separate in a spill in the marine environment, with the bitumen forming oil balls that sink. Natural Resources Canada relied on tests in freshwater vats to which salt was added, the same approach used by Kinder Morgan in its Gainford Alberta “study” that ran for 10 days only. DFO used its real-life facilities in Dartmouth that replicate the ocean environment, using actual sea water. Luck has been with us thus far and no spill of dilbit has occurred on Canada’s coasts. Most experts agree that it is only a matter of time before a dilbit spill occurs. It is not clear that we have adequate technology to deal with such a spill. The likelihood is that the bitumen will sink to the ocean floor while the diluent volatilizes and makes people sick, including increasing their lifetime cancer risk.

3. Impact of the new pipeline routing

The new proposed pipeline route, although advertised as though it “twins” the existing route actually vastly increases the risk to BC wild salmon by running the pipeline along the Fraser River to reach the new (and disastrous) proposed Roberts Bank terminal.

3a: The original Roberts Bank 2 project and threats to Species at Risk

While the promotional materials from the federal government emphasize that there have been many studies on the Roberts Bank expansion, they fail to mention that the studies were for a container port expansion, not for a pipeline terminus and oil tanker port.

Nevertheless, the environmental review of the earlier proposal for the Roberts Bank expansion made it clear it would cause permanent environmental damage threatening numerous species.

In March 2020, the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency concluded that the Terminal 2 expansion project will:

• Cause detrimental impacts on threatened Chinook salmon populations from the Fraser River that feed endangered Southern Resident killer whales.

• Destroy the legally-protected Critical Habitat of Southern Resident killer whales by increasing underwater noise and disturbance, thus reducing the whale’s ability to find and capture their Chinook salmon prey.

The Panel also concluded that these impacts could not be mitigated, offset, or compensated for by the measures proposed by VFPA. Offsetting describes the act of restoring or creating habitat elsewhere to make up for lost habitat as a result of a project.

Of particular concern is the threat to the global population of the Western Sandpiper. The Impact assessment panel acknowledged this threat but lacked sufficient science to make specific findings.

This article in The Narwhal is essential reading for decision-makers prior to fast-tracking a bulldozer over the survival of a species.

“Tiny birds, and their tiny superfood, could decline due to ‘irreversible’ effects of Vancouver port expansion

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion at Canada’s busiest cargo port could be fast-tracked by the federal government. It’s a major stop for 3.5 million western sandpipers to eat and recharge while travelling the entire Pacific”

By Steph Kwetásel’wet Wood

Photography by Isabelle Groc

Nov. 3, 2025(Updated May 15, 2026

“Microscopic organisms make up the food — called biofilm — which supports the round, fluffy western sandpiper. Biofilm provides the little shorebird fuel as it makes an epic journey between Peru and Alaska. Thousands of western sandpipers fly in artistic murmurations and gently poke their pointy beaks into the mud, scooping up biofilm with hairy tongues. Biofilm is part of the foundation of the food chain that also supports crabs and fish, bears and whales.”…

“Bob Elner, scientist emeritus with Environment and Climate Change Canada and adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, said evidence suggests this unique richness is due to the spring influx of fresh water from the Fraser River into the salt water, which causes a “shock” in the tiny diatoms, causing them to be highly active and pulse out rich omega-3 fatty acids and other nutrients.

Elner said Roberts Bank “is the largest old unaltered, intertidal estuary” in the province; equivalent banks have been impacted by development. He closely studies western sandpipers, but said they aren’t the only creatures that may decline as a result of changing the biofilm.

“Really, it’s much bigger than that, because those same fatty acids [in the biofilm] are responsible for the eulachan fishery, salmon fisheries and it goes up to orcas and marine mammals. It’s really that transfer of fat — these fatty acids — through the system,” …

“The risk this will occur is very, very high, and the outcome is very predictable — species-wide impact, but also impacts at the fisheries level.”

Shorebirds are one of the “fastest declining groups” of birds in the world, he added. “Much of it, in my professional opinion, is tied to the removal of these sources of active biofilm.”…

“I believe in science,” he added. “The science has been ignored.”

https://thenarwhal.ca/roberts-bank-terminal-western-sandpiper/

Back in April 2023, when the permits were granted. I pointed out that the so-called “binding conditions” would not protect the multiple species at risk.

The excerpt below is from Hansard on June 13, 2023:

“Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight in Adjournment Proceedings, at a later time than usual, with it being just about one o’clock in the morning, to follow up on a question I asked in question period on April 27. Just before Earth Day, the Government of Canada approved a massive nature-destroying project, a controversial one that has been fought by British Columbians since 2013 when it was first put forward. It is called the Roberts Bank terminal expansion.

I asked the hon. Minister of Transport how it could be justified, with the opposition and the clarity the environmental impact assessment, itself, found, and it is very rare to get such strong language from an environmental assessment review, that there would be significant and irreversible adverse effects that threaten the survival of a number of species. Still, as the Minister of Transport explained, the project was approved because it had 370 binding conditions, and somehow this devastating project was going to be magically purified through those conditions.

I also included in my question my favourite of the conditions, number 14.7.1, which requires that they paint the cranes to be used at this massive port expansion in a colour that is compatible with the surrounding landscapes. The minister responded that there were other conditions as well. I have gone through all those conditions, and there is no doubt that this project threatens the survival of numerous endangered species. The Fraser River estuary is rich in biodiversity, and the environmental assessment points to numerous endangered species with 102 species at risk.

… It is a $3.5-billion project, and it is going to add $3 billion in added GDP, so what are a few species when we really come down to it? This is an absolute violation of everything the government says it stands for.

The Minister of Transport, … said, “the economy and the environment go hand in hand.” No, the economy goes to the bank. The species at risk go to their graves. This will cause species at risk to go extinct.

Besides the very endangered southern resident killer whales, besides the endangered salmon and so many species, I want to mention one in particular because it is so clear that it cannot be moved somewhere else. One of the conditions says that the people are going to find places in mud flats to create more food for this particular species, the western sandpiper. It has a very interesting, almost hairy tongue that manages to get into something called “biofilm” and gets all its nutrients from that. Over 3.5 million western sandpipers, which makes it look like it could not be endangered, but that is the whole global population, stop at some point every single year on Roberts Bank. The biofilm is specific to that area. People cannot move it around. Experts say they cannot move this bird around, so “endangered” mean nothing to the government when its eyes are flashing with dollar signs.” ….

{and this from the former Parliamentary Secretary, Irek Kusmierczyk ‘s response:

“The conditions include protections for marine mammals, including for Southern Resident killer whales. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority will be required to ensure that the project does not increase underwater vessel noise in the Salish Sea, an important part of minimizing disruptions to the whales…

“These conditions rely on the existing and planned work by the Government of Canada, including all the protection measures in place to reduce the impact of marine traffic on the southern resident killer whales. The announcement in budget 2023 of $152 million to protect endangered whales shows our commitment to doing this important work.

The other conditions imposed on the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority include more than 100 measures to protect the local fauna, as well as develop and implement an adaptive management approach to prevent any adverse impacts on migratory birds. They also set out the requirement to use emissions free handling equipment and to provide enough provisions to the ships when they are docked at the terminal.”

In closing I raised two other points, now forgotten – opposition from the trade unions and the existence of an alternative:

“ The International Longshore and Warehouse Union says that this approval of Roberts Bank threatens jobs because the way the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority wants to operate it is automated. The union thinks it is going to wipe out jobs.

By the way, let us look at the other alternatives. There was another proposal from Global Container Terminals for half as much footprint and less environmental damage. It was not great, but they decided to go with the Roberts Bank, the biggest and most damaging project.” https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-212/hansard

3b: The revamped Roberts Bank 2 project as terminus of new dilbit pipeline

It needs to be asked if the expansion and repurposing of the Roberts Bank expansion, now to include a terminus for a new dilbit pipeline and deep-water port for oil tankers for shipping this hazardous product are bound by the previous conditions. Certainly, the new oil terminus on Roberts Bank will increase shipping and noise and further erode critical habitat for SRKW.

As other briefs have mentioned, notably from the US communities of Washington State on the San Juan islands, this whole area is in a highly active seismic zone. In the case of a large earthquake, this area will experience a rapid disappearance, in a process known as “liquefaction.” The impacts on the adjacent communities and ecosystems are wholly different with the repurposing of a container terminal on Roberts Bank to an oil tanker port and dilbit shipping area.

None of this seems to be considered important, or even moderately interesting, to our new government.

The implicit assumption appears to be that the Roberts Bank project has had sufficient consultation with Indigenous Nations and rights holders and adequate environmental review and study. The ongoing court case from the Lummi Nation of Washington State is being ignored, as is the opposition of Chief Harley Chappell and the Semiahmoo First Nation near Surrey BC.

The reality that this project is substantially different from that first proposed – just as the difference between “crude” and “Dilbit” appear to have escaped the notice of this build fast government. Facts matter. Details matter. Think first, plan well, and then build. This government has ignored facts and science to race to completion for a project without an economic case.

4. Indigenous opposition is strong to dredging Burrard Inlet, to expanding Roberts Bank and to new pipelines

On August 9th, 2026 the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UNCIC) sent an open letter to the federal and Alberta governments:

Wildfires and Floods are Devastating Communities; Canada and Alberta Must Stop Expanding the Fossil Fuel Industry and Respect First Nations Rights https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/ol_wildfires_floods_idwip2026

On August 13, Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam supported the UBCIC: “If the B.C. chiefs say no, I respect what the B.C. chiefs want. ”

5. Climate impacts

If this project is fast-tracked, who can ever believe this prime minister on any issue ever again?

This excerpt is from Hansard, Question Period on October 17. 2025. It was a solemn pledge just hours before the House of Commons voted on the November 4, 2025 federal budget.

Right Hon. Mark Carney (Prime Minister, Lib.):

“I can confirm to this House that we will respect our Paris commitments for climate change, and we are determined to achieve them.

I can confirm with this House that consistent with our Kunming-Montreal commitments, the nature strategy will be released in the coming weeks.”

Since that statement, climate commitments have been broken. Where the budget pledged no Investment Tax credits for enhanced oil recovery, that specific pledge was violated ten days later in the October 27 MOU with Alberta. The government’s climate credentials, never strong, lie in tatters.

The entangled projects of expanding Roberts Bank, dredging Burrard Inlet and building a new pipeline ensure we violate commitments to nature and endangered species as well as to climate.

The government’s own internal process, working with scientists within Environment Canada and Climate Change and academics from across Canada has issued a peer-reviewed, authoritative update. It was released in early September 2026. The review is chilling in confirming the degree to which our economy, communities and ecosystems are at risk. The report makes it clear that dangerous levels of additional warming with attendant negative and dangerous changes for Canadians are now “locked in” by changes to the chemistry of the planetary atmosphere that are irreversible.

These impacts include more extreme drought, flooding, heat domes, wildfires and dangerous weather events of many kinds. The report, unfortunately, could give rise to complacency. If these are “locked in,” why try?

This tendency to complacency is reinforced as analysis after analysis demonstrates Canada is not on track to meet our internationally legally binding commitments under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.

The most recent assessment from the Canadian Climate Institute finds that we will not hit our 2030 goal, even the initial one tabled with the UNFCCC by the previous administration of former prime minister Stephen Harper in May 2015.

https://climateinstitute.ca/news/canada-more-than-20-years-behind-2030-emissions-target/

According to the Canadian Press article (link below). The office of Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin said Ottawa is still committed to reaching net-zero by 2050 through “a pragmatic and durable approach.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/article/canada-wont-even-hit-2030-emissions-target-by-2050-new-study-suggests/

This statement is typical in attempting to confuse the public with a bait and switch approach to our Paris target.

Our legally binding commitments are those tabled with the Secretariat of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, these targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) can be changed at any time, but only to be “ratcheted up,” only to be increasingly ambitious in reducing emissions.

Our initial NDC, from May 2015 was an INDC, pre-Paris and stated as an “Intended NDC”. The Harper target was 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

In April 2021 the former administration of Justin Trudeau increased our target to 40-45% below 2005 levels.

That remains Canada’s legally binding commitment.

Public and media confusion was created (and I believe deliberately) when the previous government introduced the Climate Accountability Act, C-12, which I opposed for this reason. It ignored our Paris target. It rejected any mention of the core Paris global goal to hold global average temperatures as far below 2 degrees C as possible and to strive to hold global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees C of warming, as compared to global average temperatures before the Industrial Revolution. Instead, C-12 introduced the target of “net zero by 2050.” This target CANNOT replace the Harper 2030 target nor the Trudeau target for 2030. It amounts to a massive retreat. It creates the false notion that getting to some far distant destination -2050 – is possible and avoids 2 degrees C of global average temperature increase, It cannot. The use of Net Zero by 2050 in the Climate Accountability Act was an act of duplicity by ECCC having confirmed in advance with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that they would go along with the NZ by 2050 goal. Of course they did. It allows growth in emissions for decades with some fanciful notion of rapid cuts at the last minute. As was made very clear by the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, April 4, 2022, the only way to avoid exceeding 2 degrees C is for rapid cuts in global emissions, at the latest before 2025.”

Canada must do far more than is currently anticipated, starting with rejecting any new fossil fuel infrastructure- whether for fracked gas or mining bitumen.

The only fossil fuel infrastructure consistent with reaching Paris targets and building Canada’s economic sovereignty would be expanding Canada’s domestic refinery capacity, particularly to upgrade bitumen to synthetic crude for domestic refining for domestic markets.

The Green Party has advocated ceasing importing any foreign petroleum products and using only Canadian oil until our reliance on fossil fuels is completely phased out. This strategy, “Mission Possible,” was released in 2019. The current proposal is to ship out unprocessed solid bitumen to foreign, primarily US, refineries, exporting domestic jobs with the raw bitumen.

What we learn from the recent Environment Canada report is critical.

The report makes it clear that impacts on Canadian communities, nature and our economy could get very much worse based on global average temperature increase and the extent to which all nations, but particularly the big polluters, like Canada, reduce emissions and how quickly we, collectively do so. That message needs to be incorporated into this government’s thinking- and quickly.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/science-technology/changing-climate-report-2026/cccr-report-summary-en.html

To say the issue requires collective global effort does not absolve our leadership of the requirement to save Canadian lives and communities and other species. Canada has always “punched above our weight” to use Lloyd Axworthy’s phrase.

We are the worst performer in the G-7 on climate.

If even at this late date, we changed course- and committed to the world that we were going to cease reliance on fossil fuels, claim an Energy super-power status as a “Renewable Energy Super Power” and commit to meeting our targets, reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and use regulations (CEPA part 4) to require facilities to slash their emissions, we could be a leader, encouraging other nations to do the same. The going off oil projects has positive implications for our foreign policy. Shut down all Russian oil. End the dependency on fossil fuels globally that drives war and geopolitical uncertainty. IT aids our efforts to modernize our economy through an east- west north-south electricity gird of 100% renewable energy. This will require a restructuring of our current electricity generating and distributing system. This is the ultimate challenge in reducing interprovincial trade barriers. Only through a tough and frank conversation, transparent so all Canadians can identify the challenges in moving to much cheaper electricity – everywhere can we make it to anything close to our Paris goals.

Our children’s lives and our grandchildren’s future security depend on our actions in the next few years. So, it must be worth it to take the challenge seriously.

On June 17, 2019, the House of Commons voted that we are in a climate emergency.

Building a new pipeline will only confirm that we are a Parliament of liars.

The post Response to Canada Gazette post of August 1, 2026 to recommend the West Coast Oil Pipeline as a project of national interest appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Perhaps unexpectedly, I am starting this morning’s letter with memories of that awful September 11th, 25 years ago. My step-son was living in New York, and worse, worked in the office of the New York Department of Justice as an assistant D.A. That building was only a block or so from the World Trade Centre. From his office window he watched in horror as people jumped. The blow by blow of that day is fresh in my mind. Incredibly, my godfather, actor Cliff Robertson, was in a small plane that morning and saw the whole thing unfolding. He phoned my mom in Cape Breton to tell her of his experience. He was flying his Cessna from Long Island into Manhattan. He saw a large black cloud ahead, and thought it must be an unexpected thunderstorm. Then he looked down just in time to see the second plane fly into the second tower. He immediately thought “we are under attack.” And almost as soon as he thought it, he was contacted by the FAA. He was ordered to follow a new flight path and land in Harrisburg Pennsylvania. Once on the ground, he was there for two weeks.

Years later, I heard directly from the decision-maker who had told the FAA to get all the aircraft in the skies over North America on the ground immediately. The Navy Captain who made that call is a friend from Sidney by-the-Sea Rotary, Mike Jellinek. As is normal in the shared North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), leadership is shared between US and Canadian armed forces. It was a Canadian in control that morning. I had asked Mike if they had considered shooting down the hijacked planes? He explained that whatever they might have considered, the first problem was the hijacked planes were invisible. Once the terrorists took control of the cockpit, they shut off the transponders. Looking at North American radar and the crowded airspace of the eastern seaboard, there were just thousands of dots in the air. The only way to sort out the clogged image was to get the legitimate flights out of the sky immediately. I find it incredible that any bureaucracy, even military or the FAA could move so fast that my Uncle Cliff was re-routed within minutes.

The whole tragedy remains unbearable. Every day around the world, lives are lost in wars, by blockades and cruelty, yes, in horror after horror. But this one day traumatized those directly involved and those watching on television. People say that day “changed everything.” I do not think so. It shattered many things. It gave the US the illegitimate excuse to launch an illegal war on Iraq. But we still live in that fragile world where all that can pull humanity through is the rule of law, international law and a deep commitment to world peace. That commitment remains shaky. But we have to keep trying. As feeble as that sounds, Canada must re-engage for world peace, diplomacy and nuclear disarmament – and do it with renewed vigour.

Next, an apology for an error in last week’s letter. Looking at media coverage, failing to go to original sources (which I always try to do), I had wrongly credited the Canadian Climate Institute with a new climate report.

Actually the Climate Institute was commenting on a much more substantive and significant scientific update from Environment Canada. It is the most impressive work of science I have seen from Environment Canada in years. The full report runs nearly 1500 pages. I recommend this 66 page summary. It makes it clear that as global average temperatures rise, due to humanity’s burning of fossil fuels and removal of forests, Canada, and particularly our North, warm far faster than the rest of the world.

Have a look at the colour image at Figure RS.5. It gives an overview of all of Canada.

Headline statement 4:

“Warming temperatures have driven wide-ranging, interconnected, and sustained changes across Canada. The changes include more extreme heat, less extreme cold, longer growing seasons, longer fire seasons, earlier peak stream flow, shorter snow and ice cover seasons, thinning glaciers, thawing permafrost, warming oceans, and rising sea level. Human-caused warming is the only explanation for the collective changes observed.”

I do worry about the media coverage. It is true what we have done is irreversible, but that does NOT mean it is too late to save ourselves and our grandchildren from the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Only massive efforts to shut down the use of fossil fuels for energy will stop global average temperature from rising, potentially triggering unstoppable and self-accelerating rates of global heating. We must redouble efforts to reduce emissions drastically – all countries and all at once. Simultaneously we must do more to be prepared for what is coming. We must develop community resilience and national capacities to save lives and protect ecosystems.

Instead, Canada is doubling down on fossil fuel expansion.

This week our prime minister is welcoming bankers and investment giants to Toronto for his so-called “Investment Summit.”

Here is how the Clean 50 newsletter presents it:

“Canada for Sale?

• • • Breaking news: Ottawa pitches 167 projects to some of the world’s biggest investors, from offshore wind and batteries to new oil pipelines and LNG
    • What the project list says about the economy Canada wants to build, plus a link to the full investment summit pitch book.”

To prepare for the summit, the government announced slashing environmental assessments for favoured projects.

We must not be silent – nor allow the false narrative that these projects are “good for the economy.”

We must, at least, demand a public, independent assessment of the business case for each project. A cost-benefit analysis. Right now there is no such case for the new pipeline, nor for destroying the ecosystems of Roberts Bank and Burrard Inlet. If there were a business case, wouldn’t private sector companies be asking to build the projects?? This argument – “show me the money” may prove more powerful to the rest of Canada than “hands off our salmon and our Southern Resident Killer Whales!” Why is the current government willing to spend public dollars so recklessly, increasing debt and deficit for projects the business community will not touch? One way or another, we have to push back.

Thanks for all who said hi at Salt Spring Fall Fair yesterday. This afternoon is Cordova Bay’s meeting. Tomorrow is Pender Islands’ town hall and Tuesday Mayne Island! Check here for the schedule: https://elizabethmaymp.ca/events/.

And hope to see you soon!

Lots of love,

Elizabeth

And P.S.

PLEASE help me get signatures above 10K for the National Gallery to – at long last – hold an exhibit of the works of one of Canada’s greatest artists: the Robert Bateman petition closes Sept 25.

You can find and sign this petition here.

The post Good Sunday Morning! Issue #336 appeared first on Elizabeth May.