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.

Time: 03/10/2022 15:11:55
Context: Question
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, back in April, even before the current government approved the drilling in Baie du Nord, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres pointed out that we are on track to more than double the 1.5°C Paris target. He stated, “Some government leaders are saying one thing and doing another. Simply put, they are lying.”

Since 1990, our emissions have risen more than any other G7 country. When Antonio Guterres said some government leaders are lying, which countries’ leaders do we think he is referencing?

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her comment and her dedication to the issue of climate change over many decades.

As the IPCC has said, countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 43% by 2030. We are on track to meeting at least a 40% reduction and on our way to meeting a 45% reduction.

We are doing more right now than any other country in the G7 to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Our investments, on a per-capita basis, are three times what the Americans just announced with the IRA in the U.S.

The post UN Secretary General says leaders are lying about climate. Does he mean Canada’s leaders? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Within six months, Canada ratified the treaty – the first industrialised country to do so.

In that treaty, we pledged to cut emissions and plan for adaptation. So far, we have gone in the wrong direction on emissions. In 2019, the last year for which we have statistics, Canada was 13% above 1990 levels. The drop in total emissions of approximately 9% between 2019 and 2020 was largely due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) confirms that it expects emissions to have risen between 2020 and 2021. We must stop adding and start subtracting our emissions. We are still the worst performer in the G-7.

That poor record is matched by our lamentably slow pace in adapting to those levels of climate change we can no longer avoid.

We committed in 1992, and again in the Paris Agreement, to act on adaptation.

Only now, thirty years later, has Canada committed to developing a national adaptation strategy.

Click here to read the full submission.

Supplementary materials:

• INTEGRATING SCIENCE TO ADDRESS FOOD AND HEALTH WITHIN GLOBAL AGENDA 2030 – Gordon A. McBean
• The Influence of Denier’s Science on Not Addressing Climate Change – Gordon McBean
• Building Climate Resilient Communities: Living Within the Earth’s Carrying Capacity SSHRC Knowledge Synthesis Grant April 2021 G.A. McBean and P. Kovacs, Western University and ICLR – Co-Principal Investigators J.A. Voogt and G.A. Kopp, Western University and S. Guilbault, ICLR – Collaborators
• Building Climate Resilient Communities in Recovery from COVID-19 and Moving to a Green and Resilient Society

The post Green Party of Canada submission to Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has been a week of carnage for the poor people of Ukraine. Hospitals bombed, a theatre destroyed where hundreds of people had been sheltering – Russian bombs repeatedly hit civilian targets.

On Tuesday, for the first time in history, a foreign leader addressed our parliament by zoom. I have never been more nervous about any speech than the one I had the opportunity to deliver following President Volodymyr Zelensky’s address. In advance, the only thing I was sure I would say was to share the letter from Ukrainian Green president, Vitaliy Kononov.

I had no more then 3-4 minutes and there was so much I wanted to say. But being the last speaker, after our prime minister, the Speakers from the House and Senate, and leaders of Conservative, Bloc Quebecois and NDP, I wanted to hear them first, absorb President Zelensky’s speech and not repeat what others had said. I never deliver a prepared text in any event, but this crisis and knowing I would be speaking directly to a man I admire so much – in a shelter and targeted for assassination by Vladimir Putin – increased my nervousness. More than usual, it felt like stepping out on a high wire without a net.

Many of you will have already seen the speech as it received a higher than usual amount of media coverage, but here are the links for the video of the speech, and thanks to Policy magazine, the text:

https://elizabethmaymp.ca/elizabeth-may-responds-to-president-zelenskyys-address-to-the-canadian-parliament/

https://www.policymagazine.ca/truth-and-the-courage-of-the-ukrainian-people-will-prevail/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=truth-and-the-courage-of-the-ukrainian-people-will-prevail

We must do more to support Ukraine and defend it against this brutal Russian aggression. But, as I wrote last week, we cannot respond with a NATO “no fly zone.” The risk of an expanded war and of a nuclear exchange is simply unacceptably high. I wanted to be sure to keep separate the Russian people from Putin. Mine was the only speech to thank the enormously brave peace protesters within Russia.

One other point I wanted to make as the world increasingly paints this conflict as a morality play in which Putin is a bad man and war criminal (which assuredly he is) was that his conduct was not out of keeping for super-powers – East or West. I remember the 1964 escalation of the war in Vietnam authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, by-passing the Constitutionally required ¾ vote in the U.S. Senate. The resolution was named for an event that never happened. Famously, the Iraq War under George W Bush and Tony Blair was based on a pile of lies about “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. Wars are fought based on lies and war crimes are committed. No wonder the U.S. government has fought so hard against the establishment of the International Criminal Court. While we join the cries to bring Putin to justice, we must not forget that other leaders, from the US, UK, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel, have done much the same.

I gravely fear that this current conflict could affect our next federal budget – expected some time in April. The calls to spend 2 percent of our budget on war and preparations for war, the NATO members’ target, must be rejected. Let’s demand that we spend 2 percent on peace and preparations for peace. That increased spending could go immediately to helping Ukraine.

In the media coverage after the speech, I learned I had been noticed by none other than Vladimir Putin himself. I am now banned from ever travelling to Russia. I regard this as an enormous honour.

In non-war news this week, the science reports on global warming are deeply alarming and almost unnoticed. There are simultaneous heat waves in the Arctic and the Antarctic. This from the Washington Post: “Antarctic climatology has been rewritten,” tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered “impossible” and “unthinkable” before they actually occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/18/antarctica-heat-wave-climate-change/

And this headline from the Physics journal, Phys.org: Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 40 and 30 degrees Celsius above normal.

An atmospheric river in Antarctica is accompanying these unprecedented temperatures. To say this is all unprecedented is to state the obvious. To say the world is distracted by war, is equally redundant. To say we need to be able to focus on war, pandemic and the dangers of a deteriorating life-support system is a call to all humanity to rally for democracy, peace and survival all at once.

Not easy, but essential.

I try. But I totally sympathize with leaders who cannot. We need unrelenting public pressure.

As COVID restrictions ease, I am finally able to announce actual events!

We have a fundraiser for the Green Party on Thursday in Ottawa with Amita and Mike and me. Please join us. It will be the kick-off for phase 2 of the Green Virtual General meeting (see details in the P.S.)

And I have a slew of meetings coming up in person in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Details are listed below. Please mark them down in your calendar!

Thanks again for all the lovely emails this last week. I will be back in Ottawa from today until April 7th.

With love and prayers for peace,

Elizabeth

P.S.

Join us this March 25-27 for the 18th General Meeting of the Green Party of Canada.

Upcoming SGI Community Meetings (non-partisan!)

Details may be changed, watch for confirmations!

BRENTWOOD BAY COMMUNITY MEETING: Friday, April 8 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Central Saanich Cultural Centre – 1209 Clarke Rd, Brentwood Bay, BC V8M 1P8

GORDON HEAD COMMUNITY MEETING: Saturday, April 9 – 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm PST – Mt Doug Auditorium – 4100 Lambrick Way, Victoria, BC V8N 5R3

SALT SPRING ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Sunday, April 10 – 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm PST – Fulford Hall – 2591 Fulford-Ganges Rd, Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 1Z4

CORDOVA BAY COMMUNITY MEETING: Tuesday, April 12 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – CB55+ Association Facility- 5238 Cordova Bay Road Victoria, BC V8Y 2L2

PENDER ISLANDS COMMUNITY MEETING: Wednesday, April 13 – 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm PST – Pender Islands Community Hall – 4418 Bedwell Harbour Road Pender Island BC V0N 2M1

SIDNEY COMMUNITY MEETING: Thursday, April 14 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Mary Winspear Centre – 2243 Beacon Ave, Sidney, BC V8L 1W9

JOINT COMMUNITY MEETING WITH MP MAY AND MLA OLSEN: Wednesday, April 20 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – St. Elizabeth’s Church – 10030 Third Street Sidney, BC V8L 3B3

MAYNE ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Thursday, April 21 – 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm PST – Mayne Island Community Centre – 493 Felix Jack Rd, Mayne Island, BC V0N 2J2

SATURNA ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: Saturday, April 23 – 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm PST – Saturna Recreation and Culture Centre – 104 Harris Rd, Saturna, BC V0N 2Y0

GALIANO ISLAND COMMUNITY MEETING: UNCONFIRMED: TO BE DETERMINED – Galiano Community Hall – 141 Sturdies Bay Rd Galiano Island, BC V0N 1P0

The post Good Sunday Morning – March 20 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My week was dominated by completing work with Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Caucus on the Green Party submission to the Emission Reduction Plan required by the so-called Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Just a sidenote that it is wonderful to be engaged in open and collegial work between MPs and the party. Not commenting on the past- just celebrating progress! I wrote about the public consultation process on climate last week, emphasizing the deadline for submissions was Friday, January 14.

On-line, climate groups were all alerting supporters to get comments in by January 14th. Then on Tuesday, I had an email from one of my favourite friends in the world, Janice Harvey in New Brunswick. She was getting ready to assign the on-line survey to one of her university classes and sharp-eyed, she noticed that the government website actually said comments were due “before January 14.” She asked me if I was sure the deadline was the 14th- or could “before January 14” mean January 13th? I sent a quick personal email to two people I regard as friends – one is the environment minister and the other his parliamentary secretary. Pretty quickly, I got a reply that the deadline was, in fact, midnight the 13th!

I started letting people know. And it got a bit confusing. I am super grateful that Amita Kuttner, our new interim leader, is prepared to treat Green Party members as activists who would want to know. The party sent out an alert (if you are a Green member, you should have gotten it) that the deadline was 24 hours earlier than we had thought.

On Friday, Environment and Climate Change issued a news release:

“Since the formal engagement process launched on December 10, 2021, the federal government received approximately 20,000 public submissions. In response to the overwhelming interest and useful feedback received so far, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, is extending the deadline for public submissions to the 2030 ERP by one week to 11:59 p.m. PST on January 21, 2022.”

Considering we had over 100,000 submissions on the electoral reform process, back when I was on the special committee struck to deliver on Trudeau’s promise that 2015 would be our last election under first part the post, (a Goldie Oldie of the Broken Promises Hit Parade), 20,000 does not strike me as a big number. With an additional week I hope we can encourage thousands more to demand stronger climate action. Here again is the excellent tool kit from Climate Messengers: https://link.climatemessengers.ca/consult

One area of controversy is the role, if any, of nuclear energy in climate solutions. As a both climate activist and also an anti-nuclear activist, I went through a real crisis back when I was Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada. The whole organization went through a profound re-think. Green Parties around the world, including Canada, have also grappled with the question. Some members do not agree with our position.

If nuclear was any possible part of a solution to the threat of global warming, how could we rule it out?

It turns out, that is a very big IF and the answer to this day is NOT. Sure, Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon Jonathan Wilkinson says repeatedly “there is no pathway to Net Zero that does not include nuclear.” The federal Department of Natural Resources (formerly Energy, Mines and Resources) has historically favoured the nuclear industry. Canadians have invested tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for nuclear power. Then, under Harper, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and its remaining assets were sold for a song ($15 million!) to that favoured and coddled insider group, SNC Lavalin.

My favourite quote on nukes was Fred Knelman’s great line from the 1980s, “Nuclear is a future technology whose time has passed.”

In the current context, nuclear is in the way of the decarbonization of our economy. The way the Green Party has analyzed it, we need to test any public energy investments for climate action against clear criteria:

· Per dollar invested, how many tons of carbon are eliminated?

· Per dollar invested, how many jobs are created?

· How quickly can the technology/investment be up and running, reducing emissions?

By these simple criteria, nuclear scores far below energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements. It is miles behind solar energy installation, wind power, or geothermal. It is capital intensive and creates few jobs. It takes over a decade, at a minimum, to move from concept to approval to construction. When poor performers take public dollars, there is an opportunity cost. New nuclear is an obstacle to a zero carbon economy.

On top of that, it involves uranium mining which has traditionally involved abuses of indigenous rights as well as environmental contamination. It involves the creation of high-level nuclear waste that must be contained from the biosphere for at least a quarter of a million years – with no known technology to do so. As well, nuclear energy inevitably increases the risk of nuclear proliferation for military purposes.

Now, we have the new propaganda for “Small Modular Reactors” – as though there is something magical about “SMRs” that would make new nuclear worthy of consideration. Again, the industry consortium promoting new nuclear, is led by SNC Lavalin. The federal subsidies going to New Brunswick where Point Lepreau’s high level nuclear waste essentially sitting in swimming pools, wlil be the source of “harvested” fuel. No existing SMR exists. This technology is experimental and unproven for commercial use. And First Nations in New Brunswick object to, yet again, violating indigenous rights.

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/peskotomuhkati-nation-nuclear-reactor-testing-new-brunswick-small-modular-reactors/

Now the nuclear debate is raging in Europe after a committee of the European Parliament suggested that nuclear could be rated as a transitional form of energy. In any earlier consideration, nuclear has been ruled out in any climate friendly technologies, such as under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, or from any consideration for the Paris Agreement. Now the whole notion that the conditions that were suggested to make nuclear meet those tests has been called into question. The hypotheticals to be achieved would appear to put it out of the running. The vote in the European Parliament could be very close indeed. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/misunderstanding-could-block-nuclear-from-claiming-green-eu-label-industry-warns/

A reminder to please tune in next Saturday to hear from Interim leader Amita Kuttner, Mike Morice and me at our Saanich-Gulf Islands Green AGM! The link below is to RSVP. Please join us.

Hope you and your family are being careful and staying safe. John and I finally got our booster shots this week. But we know the vaccines alone do not provide full protection. Masks and distancing rules continue. Be well and healthy. And eventually, we can get to the other side of this. Let’s hope humanity learns some lessons!

Have a great week!
Love,
Elizabeth

PS:
Here is the link to register for the SGI Green AGM – on Saturday, January 22, 2022, from 2-4 pm BC time.

Please RSVP here if you would like to attend the AGM online via Zoom. Note that this is a two-step process. After you register you will receive an email from Zoom asking that you register to get the meeting link. Hope to see you there!

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – January 16 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-06-09 19:41 [p.8188]

Madam Speaker, I am resuming a question I asked previously. The minister of fisheries answered the question, but it pertains to climate targets and climate accountability. I made the point in question period that, when we talk about climate targets, they are not political. Climate targets are deeply about the science.

The minister of fisheries replied at the time that the new targets the Prime Minister had just announced at the Earth Day summit with Joe Biden were, in fact, to be put into the law and actually reflected in part of what is called the net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C-12. Since then, the government decided not to put those targets in the act.

The key point I want to make today in our adjournment proceedings is about the nature of what we committed to do under the Paris Agreement in 2015 at COP 21. The key thing we committed to do was to work with all the other nations on earth to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5° above what those levels were before the industrial revolution, and to certainly hold it as far below 2° as possible.

Why does this matter? The survival of human civilization is very much at risk if we miss these targets. We are now more than 1°C in global average temperature increase above where we were as a society and a planet before the industrial revolution. Going above 1.5° is actually not a safe zone; it is a danger zone. It involves a significant risk to human civilization’s survival. Going above 2° would put our future generations, our own children, very much at risk. That is why the targets are not political. They are about the science.

I am heartbroken that the government chose to put forward its so-called climate accountability legislation, which aims for a level of reductions of emissions that are not tied to the science. It actually puts us at risk. There is a lot of clamouring around Bill C-12 and the title “net-zero”, but net-zero by 2050 is the wrong target. Net-zero by 2050 does not hold to 1.5°. In the words of Greta Thunberg, net-zero by 2050 is “surrender” without short-term and near-term targets that ensure global emissions are cut in half by 2030.

I have just this moment left clause-by-clause as it ends on Bill C-12. The milestone year remains 2030, but the large problem remains that, if we do not improve what we have agreed to do, the target of 40% to 45% below our 2005 levels by 2030 referenced when I put this forward in question period is not close to being what we committed to do in Paris.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set forth what all countries on earth have to do. Canada has a larger burden than most, because it is the only country in the industrialized world to see our emissions go up so very much since 1990 and go up since Paris.

We have a commitment to do better and to do more. That means that we should be revising our target upward and we should not delude ourselves into believing that net-zero by 2050 is anything other than a public relations gloss on what the science tells us we must do. We are in a climate emergency. We need to act like it and ban fracking, cancel the TMX pipeline and do those things in our power, as a wealthy industrialized society, to move to climate security.

The post Canada’s climate targets must be stronger appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-03-10 18:07 [p.4851]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to present my opinion in French. I completely agree with my colleague from Jonquière, and I thank him.
Greta Thunberg has said:

Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender. We have to have a first milestone year in 2025. What are his comments?

Mario Simard (Jonquière)
2021-03-10 18:07 [p.4851]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.

First of all, I thank my hon. colleague, who is so kind and who always makes an effort to address us in French. It is a nice change, compared to some other members. I totally agree with her. There is an old adage in French about how one can never be too bold. I will not get into where it came from, but I am not seeing any boldness from the federal government at the moment. There is a consensus on this, and it is unfortunate.

Earlier I mentioned the two big questions: how to reconcile the economy and the environment, and how to put an end to this national self-centredness, with some refusing to act until others do. How do we fix this? For us, the answer is quite simple: We must get out of the Canadian oil economy. Until everyone is willing to take a hard look in the mirror, Alberta’s economy will not improve and we will not achieve—

The post Bill C-12: Carbon neutrality by 2050 is surrender appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-03-10 17:19 [p.4844]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was absolutely right. The science demands that we have a milestone year in 2025 that is meaningful.
The act, as written, is dangerous. How does the hon. parliamentary secretary square the real science with this fake bill?

Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge)
2021-03-10 17:20 [p.4844]

Madam Speaker, I look to what the former leader of the New Democratic Party stated when we tabled Bill C-12. He said this was a real plan to fight climate change. A number of organizations and stakeholders commented positively on not only where this takes our government, but where this takes the country in hitting its 2050 target. I can send the hon. member the list.

The post 2025 must be a milestone year for reducing emissions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not outraged

The post Good Sunday Morning – February 28 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-02-22 19:53 [p.4407]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take the adjournment proceedings this evening to review a question and to hopefully get a better answer than the one I received back on November 30, 2020.
At that time, of course, being in calendar year 2020, the question of extreme importance and urgency was whether the government was going to fulfill a commitment that the Government of Canada made during the negotiations at COP 15 in Paris. That commitment was to improve and enhance what is called an NDC in the Paris language, a nationally determined contribution, generally referred to as a target. We committed in Paris that in calendar year 2020 we would improve our target and do so again every five years thereafter.

When I asked the minister what the plans were to improve our target in 2020, I was disappointed that he did not answer directly, but the answer is now very clear. The time has passed. We are in 2021. We have not changed our target. We have not met the commitment we made.

In conversations with people around the minister’s office, it was reported to me that the department did not think that commitment was legally binding and other countries have not done it either. I find both of those responses appalling. It is a commitment that we made. It can be found in paragraph 24 of the COP 21 decision document, in which every country with a 2030 deadline for their first NDC was to improve their target in 2020. As to the idea that other countries have not done it, 69 of them have. Of course, it is only the countries that have 2030 deadlines.

Here we are in 2021 with a target that is completely out of step with all of our G7 partners and most of the industrialized world. We have one of the weakest targets in the world and the weakest of an industrialized country, except perhaps Saudi Arabia. We now have an opportunity to improve our record. I want to shift gears here to the potential for getting things right.

We are desperately close to being completely out of time in terms of carbon budgeting to avoid going above 1.5° Celsius global average temperature increase. This is in fact the target that is in the Paris Agreement, which is a legally binding document. This increase must not be exceeded, but on almost every review of where we are on the science, it is almost impossible to hold to 1.5°. There is a window on holding to our target. It will have closed, and permanently, well before 2030.

We now have the opportunity to improve our target and do our fair share, which would be at least twice what we have now committed to do, and that opportunity is coming up now because President Biden has established a climate leaders summit to take place on Earth Day, April 22, obviously, I am sure, by Zoom.

That is when Canada is really going to have to step up and say that we are prepared to reduce our emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, and set in place a first milestone year under Bill C-12 of reductions that are firm by 2025, of at least 15%. That would be the beginning of a clear commitment to the kind of action we said we would undertake when we signed the Paris Agreement.

The post We are almost out of time to avoid more than 1.5 degrees global average temp. increase appeared first on Elizabeth May.