SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/17/22 12:08:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask a question about something my hon. friend from Elmwood—Transcona, whose speeches are always thoughtful and well-informed, did not touch on. In today's debate, we have heard a lot, particularly from the Liberals, about their commitments to net zero by 2050. I wonder if the member happened to see recent news coverage about our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, being part of a United Nations high-level expert panel that looked at the green washing, to put it mildly, around net zero by 2050 commitments. The criteria set out by that expert body and former minister Catherine McKenna makes it clear that most of these promises by non-state actors are not measurable, not realistic and are simply empty promises. Canada's commitments do not measure up to the expert panel's criteria. Does the hon. member have any thoughts on that?

153 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/17/22 5:48:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-291

Madam Speaker, it is rare for me to be able to intervene in the Private Members' Business hour, and I am pleased to be able to ask my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap how he sees this bill as making a difference. I know he covered a lot of this in his speech, but how will this bill better enable Canadians and the Canadian court system to protect our children?

72 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/17/22 6:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am raising tonight a question I initially asked in June of this year. I was basing my question on a written question on the Order Paper relating to the ongoing costs to the Canadian taxpayer of the reckless and pointless Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. In the question on the Order Paper, I pointed out that the Minister of Finance had said earlier that year that, with the rising costs of the Trans Mountain pipeline, as demonstrated by the reports from the corporation itself, which is a crown corporation owned by us, she was going to ensure that no more public money went into this crown corporation. However, a question on the Order Paper pointed out that the assessment of the ongoing debt of the project was reviewed by the TD Bank and described as confidential for commercial reasons. Therefore, we were not going to get to find out. An independent economist within British Columbia, one of our leading economists Robyn Allen, pointed out that, no, we have ongoing costs for the tariffs and we have debt from the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and that those debts are likely to be written off, leaving Canadians holding the bag once again. As disturbing as the analysis about the ongoing debt of the Trans Mountain pipeline is, it was the outrageous response of the member for Edmonton Centre, who is also the Minister of Tourism and also a deputy finance minister, that forced me to say that this better come forward at Adjournment Proceedings. In the short space of his 30-second response, he made three statements that were not true factually. He probably believes they are factual. I am not saying he is in any way dishonest; most people seem to believe this rot. First, he said, “Canadians know how important it is to get our product to market and to tidewater.” There are two mistakes there. There is no market for dilbit. Nobody in Asia is clamouring for dilbit. This is demonstrable and empirically true and, if we have another chance in late show, I will bring forward all the statistics of how few tankers have left Vancouver with available dilbit. There is no market. Second in the ridiculous statement is just misleading. It is that this project has led to 12,700 jobs, once completed. That suggests this is a job creator. The job creation is only the construction. It creates fewer than 100 permanent jobs. There will be many jobs if they ever have the horror of a seven-fold expansion of tankers carrying dilbit, because dilbit is a material that cannot be cleaned up in the marine environment. Therefore, there will be many thousands of people going to shorelines in a futile attempt to restore the ecosystem if we allow this horror to happen. Third in his statement is that, if we do this, “Canadians will enjoy full price for our oil on the world market.” This is another big whopper that is just impossible to be true. Dilbit is diluted bitumen. Bitumen is solid, like tar. They add the diluent, not to process it to make it more viable but to get something solid to move through a pipeline. Guess what. It has a very low value, inherently low. It does not become more profitable or get to world price because it gets to tidewater. It is just a low-value product that is very expensive to produce and that produces more greenhouse gases than nearly any other fossil fuel. Last, the member suggested that it is going to be derisked. The Minister of Finance says this too. It is nonsense. It is a risky project financially and it is a fatal project environmentally.

624 words

Context: House Hansard - 129 - Nov/17/22

Ms. Elizabeth May

Nov/17/22 6:40:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my heavens, I need to say a few things. I intervened in the National Energy Board process. I read all 23,000 pages of its so-called evidence, and I can swear on a stack of Bibles that nowhere in there was there a cost-benefit analysis. In fact, the National Energy Board blocked the evidence from Unifor, the largest union in the oil sands, when its representatives testified and had expert evidence that the pipeline project would cost Canadian jobs and that Unifor was against it. The National Energy Board said that jobs and the economy were not in its mandate and then magically ruled that, yes, there would be a lot of environmental damage if this went ahead, but it was in the national interest. I think the national interest is in a viable planet. I think the national interest is in making sure we try to stabilize at 1.5°C, and we know that every international body is saying no new fossil fuel infrastructure if we have an interest in human civilization surviving to when my daughter, now 31, is my age. By God, this must be stopped.

195 words