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.

And heading into the last week of April 2021, our first month lived twice in COVID.  Sadly, not our last.  I am looking forward to getting my vaccination on Thursday.  Thankfully (and genuinely thankful for prayers) my family members with COVID are on the mend. I look at poor India and wonder at the enormity of exponential growth and how we could have managed the pandemic so much better.

I succeeded this week, with indispensable help from Paul Manly, in forcing an emergency debate on COVID, the variants and the perennial problem of lack of coordination – federally and provincially. We called for a reasonable and sensible review of the lessons learned. We asked for all orders of government to ask public health experts to provide advice:  can we shift from “flattening the curve” to going to zero-COVID?  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-debate-covid19-variants-1.5996788

I think our Green caucus efforts helped push for the increased restrictions on flights from areas where the new double variants have emerged. But we know that horse is out that particular barn door. Those double variants have already arrived in Quebec, Alberta and the largest number of cases here in British Columbia.

This was a big work week with the new federal budget on Monday and Earth Day on Thursday. I promised Linda Solomon Wood, during our National Observer conversations, that I would write a column analyzing the budget, which I am still doing, so watch for that soon. But for this GSM I want to focus on the progress, halting though it was, brought about by the Biden Climate Leaders’ Summit.

With zooms, webinars, and parliament in session, we had a lot of ways in which we focused on Earth Day. The Global Greens event on Tuesday, looking forward to the Biden Climate Summit on Earth Day, is worth watching. We held it to one hour, with participation from elected Greens from the global South and industrialized countries in an inspiring conversation.  The panelists were the Minister of Climate from New Zealand, also co-leader of NZ Greens, James Shaw, the leader of the Rwandan Greens, Dr. Frank Hibeneza MP,  leader of the Argentinian Greens, Silvia Vasquez and the only elected Green in the UK Parliament, Caroline Lucas. Listening to all of them will re-ignite your sense of hope, optimism and purpose in being Green. Our Global Green family is astonishing.

https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethMayMPSGI/posts/2043330902475573

I started Earth Day earlier than I wanted for President Biden’s Climate Leaders’ Summit; up at 4:30 AM and live tweeting the event at 5 AM BC time.

Having missed the chance of a 2020 COP due to COVID, the new US administration created their own “holding feet to the fire” moment. The Earth Day Summit was an attempt to push forty national leaders to climate action. Collectively those forty nations could save us from the worst of the climate emergency.  We must never lose hope that we can move away from fossil fuels fast enough, while restoring as much of the planet’s natural sequestration capacity in green and leafy life, on land and in our oceans, also fast enough, to allow human civilization to remain intact and save millions of species.  Holding to 1.5 degrees C is no guarantee, but will give our children far better odds than blowing past 2 degrees C global average temperature increase.

To be successful, Biden and Kerry needed other countries to at least commit to what the US, now back in the Paris Agreement, is prepared to do. Biden’s administration, particularly climate security envoy John Kerry, really pulled out the stops, twisting arms, to push all nations to increase their targets such that we could move off our current trajectory – towards 3-4 degrees C global average temperature increase – to get to one with any hope of staying well below 2 degrees C and ideally no more than 1.5 degrees.  That is what all nations promised in Paris in 2015 at COP21.  And with every passing day, the chances of getting there shrink.

The best explanation of carbon budgets and the perilous nature of delay comes from Mark Carney’s new book, Value(s): Building a Better World for all (p. 273):

…”the carbon budget to limit temperature rises to below catastrophic levels is rapidly being exhausted….

“If we had started in 2000, we could have hit the 1.5 degree C objective by halving emissions every thirty years.  Now we must halve emissions every ten years. If we wait another four years, the challenge will be to halve emissions every year. If we wait another eight years, our 1.5 degree C carbon budget will be exhausted.”

This closely mirrors the IPCC advice from its Special Report on 1.5 degrees (October 2018) : “In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030… reaching net zero around 2050 …” (emphasis added)

Clearly, Biden and Kerry grasp that reality.  Kerry flew to Shanghai in his shuttle diplomacy to get more out of the Peoples’ Republic of China. It is rumoured that Kerry made it clear to Canada that the recently tabled figure in Monday’s budget of going to 36% below 2005 by 2030 (a small increase over the Harper target, still in place, of 30% below 2005 by 2030) would not be good enough to meet expectations. Kerry was twisting arms right up to the Summit itself.

Speaker after speaker stressed that the slashing of GHG emissions had to primarily take place this decade. President Macron of France put it succinctly, “2030 is the new 2050.”

They needed Canada to step up.  At least, one can say we limped a bit closer to where we should be.  Trudeau’s speech was an appalling self-congratulatory, arrogant claim of leadership. A dose of humility would have gone down better.  He committed Canada to 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030, but also pleaded for Canadian exceptionalism – it is so hard for us because we must keep building pipelines and mining the oil sands. “Canada is a country that produces and exports its energy, and so I understand that this will not be easy.”

Other countries, especially the Europeans, did step up, announcing more in climate financing and some promising tougher targets by June when leaders will meet again at the G-20.

The US is now committed to cutting its 2005 emissions by 50-52% by 2030. That is huge.  As well, the US is doubling its funding pledges to the developing world by 2024 (around $2.8 billion per year). Taking the virtual floor at the Climate Summit, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen committed to another $1.2 billion for the green climate fund and $485 million in funding to support multilateral climate initiatives.

China did not put in place a new target (called an NDC under Paris, for “Nationally Determined Contribution”.)  Chinawill strive to peak emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060. On coal phase-out, it pledged to “strictly limit” any new coal-fired power plant construction over the next five years and phase down coal consumption completely as a long-term goal. Other horrific abusers of human rights and nature were kept on board. Brazil’s Bolsonaro, who had threatened to leave the Paris Agreement, pledged to do more to protect the Amazon, stopping all illegal logging by 2030, and moving from a 2060 end year to 2050 to achieve net zero. Erdogan of Turkey was also on board for limited commitments.  Modi of India, in the grip of this devastating pandemic, spoke of the need to emerge from COVID in a decarbonized, equitable approach. Interestingly, he spoke of the need for the industrialized world to learn from the traditional lifestyle of low consumption of his nation.

Strong commitments from the EU, Germany, Italy (hosting the G20 this year where climate is expected to dominate the discussions), UK, France and Japan are already far ahead of the US. And Canada, even with the increased target, remains the worst in the industrialized world.

The most powerful speeches came from other leaders. A young indigenous woman who, with her family had left Mexico driven away by extreme weather events, only to move to New York in time for Superstorm Sandy, gave a powerful speech.  Xiye Bastida is now an active campaigner with Fridays for the Future. Who could have  imagined  an official event broadcast from the White House where a speaker would denounce “colonialism, oppression and capitalism.”  She was clear, “You need to accept that the era of fossil fuels is over,” and then read out the youth demands for an end to fossil fuel subsidies and an end to new fossil fuel infrastructure, like pipelines. The other stunning speech was from His Holiness Pope Francis.

Strangely enough, the line that will stick with me was from a leader I don’t much like.  Boris Johnson was off-the-cuff and totally committed, as the host of the Glasgow COP26, now scheduled for November 2021.  The UK commitments are impressive, driven by a climate law which since 2008, in five year increments, has driven down UK GHG.  Johnson announced the target of 78% below 1990 levels by 2035, including in its emissions aviation and international shipping, as well as ending support for fossil fuels overseas and doubling international climate finance. The line I liked? “This isn’t some sort of politically correct act of.. of,,” –  he searched for the words and came up with  –  “bunny-hugging!”

There was a lot of coverage of the summit, but this story from the National Catholic Reporter seemed to capture the sense of it.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/earthbeat/pope-francis-earth-day-messages-warns-we-are-edge-climate-change

Most Canadian coverage, naturally enough spoke of Canada’s new target and its adequacy- or inadequacy.  I am so very pleased that the national media interviews our leader, Annamie Paul, who nailed it on CBC Power and Politics: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1888761923737

Well, there is much else going on, but I have written too much already! There was the BC budget this week, with nothing for protecting old growth, so we must keep supporting the Fairy Creek old-growth protectors. And incredibly, more support for LNG from the BC NDP. https://www.bcgreens.ca/b_c_greens_respond_to_2021_budget

Stay well. Be safe. Be very careful.

I will write you next week on the tenth anniversary of our big breakthrough election here in Saanich-Gulf Islands- May 2, 2011!  And speaking of anniversaries, thanks so much to everyone who sent John and me Happy Second Anniversary greetings!  So far, it seems to be working out!

Love,

Elizabeth

Here are some video clips worth watching:

My Earth Day message in the House:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELL9SvR7wEk

Bob Bossin’s wonderful musical Earth Day gift, “Pass it Along” by songwriter Scott Cook,  (with John and me singing too!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNj7LyHqwFE  Pass it along

A great event with Jenica Atwin explaining what is wrong with so-called, “Small Modular Reactors:”

https://www.facebook.com/JenicaAtwinFredericton/posts/1407947686228734

My conversation with Linda Solomon Wood at the National Observer

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/04/23/news/video-elizabeth-may-justin-trudeau-joe-biden-and-canadas-climate-policy

To subscribe to Good Sunday Morning, visit the Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens at:
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – April 25 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-15 15:09 [p.5684]

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s climate record just continues to get worse. The most recently released data shows that our greenhouse gas emissions were rising at the beginning of COVID. Today’s report from Environmental Defence demonstrates, once again, that fossil fuel subsidies are also going up, while a report from the Breach tells us that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers secured its own special committee with cabinet.

Next week, when the Prime Minister stands up in President Biden’s climate summit, we will at long last announce a target that is meaningful and holds to 1.5°C?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2021-04-15 15:09 [p.5684]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we have developed a comprehensive climate plan that enables Canada to move forward with the rest of the international community to meet our international obligations. A credible climate plan requires increased ambition. The parties to Paris agreed that all would need to do more and increase ambition overtime. Countries around the world are doing that, and Canada will be playing its part in the international community and seizing the economic opportunities.

I believe that all parties in the House, with perhaps the exception of the Conservative Party, agree on the need for greater ambition, and Canada will be bringing forward a new climate target next week at the Earth summit.

The post PM must update Canada’s climate target at Biden’s Earth Summit next week 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.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-06-04 14:02

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the honourable minister for those responses.

Changing the subject but on the same question of issues that may be falling through the cracks due to COVID-19, the climate crisis continues apace. I mentioned in this place a week ago, in questions, that the new reading of global concentrations in the atmosphere, of 417 parts per million in carbon dioxide is a measurement that’s unprecedented not only over centuries but unprecedented over the last one million years. Since then, a new study in Science News, relying on paleoclimatology, said it’s actually unprecedented over the last 23 million years.

In other words, if we’re looking at flashing red lights on the dashboard of human survival, the flashing red light of climate emergency is getting much brighter and much more frightening than the COVID-19 emergency.

When will this government meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement to a new, revised and more aggressive target within 2020, as required by the Paris Agreement?

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (North Vancouver)
2020-06-04 14:03

Mr. Chair, certainly the government agrees with her that this is a crisis. It is a crisis that is moving at us perhaps more slowly than COVID-19, but it is a crisis whose impacts will be devastating if in fact we do not act, both in Canada and as a member of the global community.

This government has made a commitment to develop a plan that will see us meet and exceed our 2030 targets under the Paris Agreement. We have made that commitment. Obviously, we will continue to work to do that in advance of the next COP. We’ve also committed to achieving net zero by 2050, which science tells us we must do. We remain fully committed to doing that.

Of course, I am very happy to have these conversations with my honourable colleague and to continue them as we move forward.

The post When will the government meet the commitments of the Paris agreement? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-05-27 13:50

This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency.

This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That’s not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that’s unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86°F, 30°C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We’ve asked for this in negotiations.

When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount)
2020-05-27 13:52

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague’s questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We’ve also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030.

We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.

The post Will the government ensure that Canada will hit the Paris Agreement climate targets? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2020-02-28 12:07 [p.1749]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to raise the urgent matter of the climate emergency. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, 2020 is the year in which Canada must improve its climate target. We agreed to do so in 2015. We are now delinquent, in that the COP decision in Paris called for the new targets to be tabled by February 9 of this year. We need to table our new target. It needs to meet the IPCC imperative.

Can the minister update the House on progress to deliver a climate accountability act and a new target?

Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on this issue.

We took a leadership role in 2015 when we signed the Paris Agreement and encouraged other countries to do the same. Through the record investments, plans and programs we have put in place, we have been able to, projections show, bring us to 75% of the way there. We know there is more work to do, which is why we are committing to not only meeting that target but exceeding it and putting in place, in the coming months, the expert panel that will show this House and all Canadians how we plan on being carbon neutral by 2050. It is something we need to do for all of us and for our children and grandchildren.

The post We need a new climate target that meets the IPCC imperative appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post A just transition is essential appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Did you know that today – February 9th – is the deadline for the Canadian government to table its new climate target with the United Nations? That’s okay, Justin Trudeau and his environment minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, don’t know it either.

It is a little complicated. The Paris meeting, COP21, resulted in two agreements.

The Paris Agreement is the BIG ONE that everyone remembers. But COP21 also approved something called the COP21 Decision Document that included a lot of timelines to make sure things moved forward. The requirement for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prepare a special report on the difference in impacts between a world warmed by 1.5 degrees C global average temperature increase and a 2 degree difference was part of the COP21 decision document. The COP21 Decision Document also gave the IPCC the October 2018 deadline.

The requirement to get in a new target (known as our Nationally Determined Contribution –NDC) today is found in the following two paragraphs of the COP21 Decision Document. I have added text in CAPS to help with translation from UN- language:

Also requests those Parties whose intended nationally determined contribution pursuant to decision 1/CP.20 contains a time frame up to 2030 (THAT MEANS CANADA SINCE OUR NDC IS 30% BELOW 2005 BY 2030) to communicate or update by 2020 these contributions and to do so every five years thereafter pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 9, of the Agreement;
Decides that Parties shall submit to the secretariat their nationally determined contributions referred to in Article 4 of the Agreement at least 9 to 12 months in advance of the relevant session (COP26 IN GLASGOW) of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement with a view to facilitating the clarity, transparency and understanding of these contributions,including through a synthesis report prepared by the secretariat;

Today is nine months in advance of the opening of COP26 – which opens November 9, 2020.

Have any other nations missed the deadline? It is easier to list those who remembered. Two countries – the Marshall Islands and Suriname – have done so.

Unfortunately, as you can tell from the “REQUESTS” language in para 24, this deadline was not legally binding.

We must keep pushing our government to understand the dynamics of building momentum. We need Canada to at least double our NDC and file it soon. The sooner we do, the more we create pressure on other countries to table their new targets – and ensure those targets are consistent with the IPCC advice in the special 1.5 report referenced above.

One more missed opportunity, but in a week of disappointments.

The ruling of the federal Court on TMX was a major blow. But it was mostly a blow to morale. The appeals will go to the Supreme Court of Canada where we may get clarity around the question of what consultation means in the context of reconciliation.

And there is the larger reality that the TMX pipeline project is not actually fully approved. Hearings will now resume under what used to be called the National Energy Board (NEB) – under changed name (as a result of changes in the omnibus bill C-69) of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER). Only 2/3rds of the pipeline route has been approved. One third of the 1,147 kilometre route (roughly Kamloops to Metro Vancouver) is still to be determined through the CER hearings.

Hearings will be held through the summer, with a report expected before the end of the year.

Also this week, we experienced the outrage of the RCMP entering Wet’suwet’en territory to enforce the injunction. Arrests and conflict should never have taken place. Nation to nation talks could have prevented all of this, but the federal and BC governments abdicated their responsibility. The UNDRIP law that BC just passed and our national ratification of UNDRIP are apparently more lip service than real. Our Green caucus will keep pushing for a real engagement to respect the role and rights of hereditary chiefs under the “rule of law” and consider the compromise routing offered by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs.

So, to end on a more positive note, I sense strong opposition from many Liberal MPs to approving the giant Teck oil sands mine. Many have asked me for deep details as they argue behind closed doors of the Liberal caucus to Reject Teck.

Please keep up the pressure. I am including the links to petitions to Parliament at the end of today’s missive.

My whole message today – whether on climate COPs – Teck- TMX or Coastal GasLink – is that we must never EVER – ever – give up!

Have yourself a wonderful day!!

Elizabeth

Petition on Wet’suwet’en: please click here!
Petition on committing 50% of Canada’s public climate finance for developing countries towards adaptation, and at least 15% towards projects for gender equality: please click here!
Petition on pressing for electoral reform through a National Citizens’ assembly: please click here!

This weekly blog is published by Elizabeth’s EDA in Saanich-Gulf Islands. You can sign up for it here.

The post Good Sunday Morning – February 9 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to review a question and a response I received on October 4, 2017. It relates to the challenge of climate change.

My question was for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did rise and provide a response, but it was not entirely to the point of the question. It was certainly positive, and he was very generous in praising my long-time personal work on the file.

I quoted from our colleague, the late Arnold Chan, who in his last words to the House in a speech that was read by the hon. member for Ajax, who said to all of us:

It is imperative that we stop treating climate change as solely an environmental issue, but recognize it as an all-encompassing priority that we as a society and a government must confront with the utmost urgency.

When I stood to ask that question October 4, the day before we had had the release of the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, within the office of the Auditor General, Julie Gelfand, the commissioner, happened to have said this about how we were doing as a country and as a government to meet our climate change targets. She said:

Climate change is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. These audits show that when it comes to climate change action, Canada has a lot of work to do in order to reach the targets it has set.

As my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to minister of environment, will know, because I have made this point in the House in debate before, Canada showed leadership in 2015 in Paris. In the negotiations of the Paris accord, Canada was the first industrialized country to step up and agree with the developing world that we had to aim to hold global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5o C above what it was before the industrial revolution. These sound like trivial numbers, but in the context of survival for the low-lying island states, survival for people in the African content, and survival for the Arctic ice to be present over our north pole, seasonally, year round, and into the future, we have to hold global average temperature to 1.5o.

However, the target that Canada chose domestically was the very one that our Minister of Environment and Climate Change criticized in Paris, pointing out that the target of the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, was really, as the minister said at the time, the floor, that we had to do better and aim higher. Certainly, the target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, put in place by the previous government in May of 2015, is entirely insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris accord.

This inconsistency is troubling, but even more troubling is the observation that we do not yet have a plan. We have the promise of a global carbon price across all of Canada, and that is a step in the right direction. However, in the context of what needs to be done, as Arnold Chan said, we need to make this an all-encompassing priority. That means we do not approve one project that increases greenhouse gas emissions, like approving pipelines full of bitumen and diluent, and then claim we can somehow meet the targets even though we have not yet put in place energy efficiency measures, gotten rid of fossil fuel subsidies, nor delivered on a comprehensive plan to avoid going above 1.5o. We need more. We need action.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, the government very much agrees, and I personally agree, with the hon. member that this is an urgent and pressing issue that needs to be addressed in an all-encompassing way.

The Government of Canada has made taking action on climate change a very high priority. One of the first things the Minister of Environment and Climate Change did, once appointed, was to lead the Canadian delegation to the successful achievement of the Paris Agreement. Our government committed to an ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target. We then worked actively with our partners in the provinces, territories, and with indigenous leaders to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This is a detailed plan that provides a well-defined path through which we will achieve the target.

The previous Harper government set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but never developed a plan nor did the work required to meet them. That hurt Canada’s credibility at home and around the world and was unhelpful in the context of developing an international consensus. Step one for us is to show that when we set a target, we mean it. Two years after Paris, we have a lot to show for our efforts. We are introducing new legislation and regulations to ensure that a price on carbon pollution will apply across the country. The government is accelerating the phase-out of traditional coal-fired electricity units. We are establishing a clean fuel standard to reduce our emissions by incentivizing the use of lower carbon fuels, energy sources, and technologies. We are developing increasingly stringent model building codes so that all new homes will be built to a standard that will allow them to generate as much energy as they use.

We have made significant investments to support clean growth and innovation. In December, we invested more than $1 billion in the low-carbon economy fund, which will help the provinces in their fight against climate change.

We are also investing over $2.3 billion to support clean technology and innovation and to support the creation of good jobs in growing sectors of our economy. We are 100% committed to achieving our target and to working collaboratively with the international community. On December 9, 2017, we released the first annual progress report on the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework. This report highlights the strong progress that federal, provincial, and territorial governments have made in putting the pan-Canadian framework into action. We have made very significant progress, but we know we need to do more. That is part of the Paris Agreement. All countries will need to increase their level of ambition over time.

The pan-Canadian framework establishes a concrete plan to meet or even surpass our commitments under the Paris agreement. The measures we are taking today will have a real and lasting impact on the well-being and resilience of our communities and the environment.

This government will continue to work every day to turn Canada’s clean growth and climate action into new laws, regulations, actions, investments, jobs, and economic opportunities for Canadians.

Elizabeth May

Madam Speaker, here is the problem. The very same target that the hon. member just described as an ambitious target was the one that was put in place by the previous Harper government, which the hon. Minister of Environment described in Paris as the floor and that we could do better. The reality is that achieving our target—and there are large questions about whether we will—means achieving the weak target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, which does not get us to what we promised to do in Paris.

This will become glaringly apparent in October of this year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, as it was asked to do in Paris, on the pathway to 1.5°C. That moment of ratcheting up that the hon. member mentioned, the fact that we all have to do better, and I mean all countries on earth, could be led by Canada by going into the next Conference of the Parties prepared to say that we are stepping up and that we are going to move that 2030 deadline to 2025, because Canada wants to be a leader in reality, not just rhetoric.

Jonathan Wilkinson – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has a history, under governments of all political stripes, of establishing targets and not meeting those targets because no clear and comprehensive plan was developed. This government took the very firm position that we would establish a target. We would work with our provincial and territorial counterparts and with indigenous leaders across the country to develop a detailed plan that would enable Canadians to have visibility about how we will achieve our targets. We will work very hard to ensure that those are achieved and to the extent that we can make progress more quickly, we are certainly willing to ratchet up our level of ambition.

This government cares very much about climate change and ensuring a good future for our children and grandchildren. It is something we are committed to and we look forward to working with all parties in the House, including the hon. member, to ensure we actually play our part in this important international issue.

The post We need a comprehensive plan to meet our Paris target appeared first on Elizabeth May.