Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, Co-leader of the Green Party of Canada, and long time environmental activist joins Paul Beckwith in a discussion about the recent United Nations CBD-COP15 and UNFCCC-COP27 events. Elizabeth draws from years of experience to provide insightful historical context for the two treaties as well as her perspective on their outcomes.

This video was recorded on December 15th, 2022 and published on January 12th, 2023.

Some of the topics discussed:

– How since the Framework Convention on Climate Change was first signed in Rio in 1992, humanity has emitted more greenhouse gases than from the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to when the convention was signed.

– How the negotiations at these UN conferences are like a basketball game. One plays for 2 hours and the game is often decided at the last minute.

– How the climate crisis is the largest single threat to preserving species, and the single largest cause of potential extinctions.

– How Canada is no exception in that it continues to hack away at the forest cutting through old growth forest, poisoning biodiversity through our use of pesticides, and pursuing minerals underground getting forests out of the way to get them.

– How the target of 30% by 2030 is more complex than one might initially consider when a country’s biodiversity impact can be primarily caused by its consumption rather than what it is doing within its own borders since this consumption impacts other parts of the Earth.

– The importance of the indigenous peoples when one considers that 30% of the land base has to have no people on it. Should this mean we dispossess the Indigenous people from their lands in order to preserve biodiversity?

– How In terms of the goal of 30% by 2030, the biggest obstacle will be that those repositories of biodiversity, which have the most potential for us to set aside and preserve, are in developing countries where it’s simply not possible for biodiversity to be set aside without financing to ensure that those countries are compensated for what they give up in development.

– And much more . . .

Links:
– COP15 ends with landmark biodiversity agreement
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories…

– UN Biodiversity Conference CBD-COP15 Scores Historic Goal for Nature
https://www.natureunited.ca/newsroom/…

– Former Environment Minister, Green Party of Canada and Green Coaltion call on Canada to set an example
Canada and Green Coalition call on Canada to set an example and be a leader on biodiversity
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-re…

– Philippines delegate refuses to eat until action on climate change ‘madness’
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/world/…

– Climate Endgame (CEF Video)

– Canada in deepwater: behind the Trudeau government’s approval of the Bay du Nord development project
https://thenarwhal.ca/bay-du-nord-new…

Special Guest:
Elizabeth May – Canadian politician, environmentalist, author, activist, and lawyer who is serving as the leader of the Green Party of Canada since 2022, and previously served as the leader from 2006 to 2019. She has been the member of Parliament (MP) for Saanich—Gulf Islands since 2011. May is the longest serving female leader of a Canadian federal party.
.
Regular Panelist:
Paul Beckwith – Climate Systems Scientist. Professor at the University of Ottawa in the Paleoclimatology Laboratory as well as at Carleton University

Video Production:
Charles Gregoire – Electrical Engineer, Webmaster and IT prime for FacingFuture.Earth & the Climate Emergency Forum; Climate Reality Leader

Heidi Brault – Video production and website assistant, Organizer and convener, Metadata technician, COP26 team lead for FacingFuture.Earth and the Climate Emergency Forum; BA (Psychology); Climate Reality Leader

Acknowledgement:
We’d like to acknowledge these two organizations without which our attendance at COP15 in Montréal, Quebec, Canada, would not have been possible.
– Vita Sapien – https://vitasapien.org/
– Facing Future – https://www.facingfuture.earth/

Our Website:
https://climateemergencyforum.org/

Attributions:
Background Music:
– Title: Through the City II
– Author: Crowander
– Source: Free Music Archive
– License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Image and Video: https://climateemergencyforum.org/ass…

The post Elizabeth May in Conversation with Paul Beckwith – At COP15 in Montréal appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am writing to share the most recent information on the various government programmes available to self-employed people and owners of small- or medium-sized enterprises during this COVID-19 crisis.

Many of our critical local businesses are experiencing substantial losses due the COVID-19 pandemic. As your Member of Parliament, I am doing all that I can to ensure effective and adequate support for business owners and self-employed individuals. We must get through this pandemic with all our employers and companies, large and small, still standing. Clearly, the existing programmes are not providing comprehensive support. There are holes. Hearing from you about your specific challenges is so helpful so that I can press for your concerns to be addressed. Your value to our communities is so important.

My team and I have put together the following list of available resources. I hope you will find this information useful.

I know the federal government can do more. Please rest assured I am in daily contact with key ministers, working hard to get money back into our local economy as soon as possible.

If you have any questions or require any assistance, my constituency office is here to help. Although our doors are closed for walk-in appointments, please contact us via telephone at 250-657-2000 or by email at Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca. Visit my website for more information and updates.

Most importantly, stay healthy and safe. We will get through this together.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Member of Parliament

Saanich-Gulf Islands

Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES

Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy

• Provides eligible employers with a 75% wage subsidy to a maximum benefit of $847 per week per employee, for up to 12 weeks, retroactive to March 15
• The subsidy will be available in three to six weeks, as per estimates from the Ministry of Finance
• ​To qualify, your business must have experienced a 30% drop in revenue
• You must pay the 75% of wages and then will receive compensation

Work Sharing Programme

• An adjustment programme designed to help employers avoid layoffs when there is a temporary reduction in normal level of business activity
• The government has introduced temporary measures that extend the duration of Work-Sharing agreements from 38 weeks to 76 weeks

Business Credit Availability Programme

• Aimed at helping Canadian businesses obtain interest-free or low-interest financing
• Businesses seeking support through this program should contact the financial institutions with whom they have a pre-existing relationship
• There are three facets of this programme: The Canada Emergency Business Account, the Loan Guarantee for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises, and the Co-Lending Programme for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises​

Tax information

• Businesses may defer payment of income tax until August 31, 2020
• The CRA will not contact any small- or medium-sized businesses to initiate any post assessment GST/HST or income tax audits for the next month
• GST/HST and customs duty payment deferrals until June 30, 2020

Canada Emergency Response Benefit

• For those who have stopped working because of COVID-19 and have not voluntarily quit their job, and who expect to be without employment or self-employment income for at least 14 consecutive days in the initial four-week period, you may be eligible for this benefit
• Eligibility requires having made $5000 in the previous year and have received no income for 14 days
• Workers cannot receive BOTH the 75% of wage subsidy and the CERB at the same time
• Applications open April 6, 2020

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES

Tax information

• BC is extending filing and payment deadlines for the Employer Health Tax, the Provincial Sales Tax, the Carbon Tax, the Motor Fuel Tax, and the Tobacco Tax to September 30, 2020
• The following tax changes announced in Budget 2020 will be postponed until further notice: Eliminating the PST exemption for carbonated beverages, and the expanded registration requirements for Canadian sellers of goods, and Canadian and foreign sellers of software and telecommunication services
• The carbon tax increase will be delayed until further notice
• School tax rates for commercial properties in classes 4, 5, and 6 will be reduced by 50% in the 2020 tax year
• For more information, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/tax-changes/covid-19-tax-changes

BC Arts Council

• BC Arts Council is providing support for the arts and culture sector
• The programme includes a 50% advance of operating grants for Spring and Fall Operating Clients, an Arts and Culture Resilience Supplement, and various deadline extensions and deferrals

​

LOCAL PROGRAMMES

YYJ Locals for Locals

• A group of community-minded tech and marketing professionals offering pro-bono assistance to local small businesses, restaurants, and bars

Douglas Magazine

• A Victoria-based magazine with resources, advice, and information for small- and medium-sized businesses

Tiny Victoria Small Business Relief Fund

• Tech company Tiny is offering small, 0% non-recourse loans to Victoria-based small businesses

USEFUL LINKS

• Business Development Bank of Canada
• BC Economic Development Association
• Small Business BC
• Canadian Federation of Independent Business

The post Resources for the Business Community appeared first on Elizabeth May.

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH NATION, CITY OF VANCOUVER, CITY OF BURNABY, THE SQUAMISH NATION (also known as the SQUAMISH INDIAN BAND), XÀLEK/SEKYÚ SIÝ AM, CHIEF IAN CAMPBELL on his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Squamish Nation, COLDWATER INDIAN BAND, CHIEF LEE SPAHAN in his capacity as Chief of the Coldwater Band on behalf of all members of the Coldwater Band, AITCHELITZ, SKOWKALE, SHXWHÁ:Y VILLAGE, SOOWAHLIE, SQUIALA FIRST NATION, TZEACHTEN, YAKWEAKWIOOSE, SKWAH, KWAW-KWAW-APILT, CHIEF DAVID JIMMIE on his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the TS’ELXWÉYEQW TRIBE, UPPER NICOLA BAND, CHIEF RON IGNACE and CHIEF FRED SEYMOUR on their own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the STK’EMLUPSEMC TE SECWEPEMC of the SECWEPEMC NATION, RAINCOAST CONSERVATION FOUNDATION and LIVING OCEANS SOCIETY

Above is the list of Applicants who won in the Federal Court of Appeal on August 30, 2018.  The Applicants sued the Government of Canada, the National Energy Board and Kinder Morgan.

If the decision had been delivered in February, there would never have been an injunction against protesters and there would have been no arrests. All the arrests happened when the permits were illegal, but had not yet been ruled to be so.

The cases from all the above applicants were filed as separate actions.  Since all the applicants attacked the legality of the permits that were issued to Kinder Morgan to build the expansion, the court made the decision to consolidate the cases and hear them together.

The applicants brought forward and pursued specific legal arguments on different grounds. Obviously, only First Nations could argue that under the Constitution, the respondents (Canada, the NEB and Kinder Morgan) had violated indigenous rights. The cities of Burnaby and Vancouver argued that their rights to a fair process as intervenors before the NEB had been violated and Burnaby further argued Cabinet had lacked the legal right to approve the NEB’s recommendations.  Living Oceans and Raincoast relied on the Species at Risk Act in their argument that, because the NEB report wrongly excluded the impact of increased tanker traffic, Cabinet erred in approving the expansion on the basis of that flawed report.

A three-judge bench considered the consolidated cases.  Each case was argued in Vancouver across eight days in October last year. It was the longest hearing in the history of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision, running to 254 pages with additional appendices, was written by Mme Justice J.A. Dawson, with Justices De Montigny and Woods agreeing.

Reading the decision, we lose every legal argument until about page 130.  We win every legal argument from p 130-254.

Where we lost:

I was sure we would win on some grounds that the court ruled against.  The entire Vancouver case was based on the lack of procedural fairness before the National Energy Board. Part of Burnaby’s case made the same arguments. To my surprise, the court ruled that the NEB’s decisions were not open to judicial review.  In ruling against Burnaby and against Vancouver on the issue of judicial review, the court ruled that intervenors had no right to cross-examination. It ruled that although Burnaby made a strong case that the risks of a tank farm fire were dire, the NEB had acknowledged this and set further conditions in place to address it. The court ruled: “It is not for this Court to opine on the appropriateness of the policy expressed and implemented in the National Energy Board Act. Rather, the Court’s role is to apply the legislation as Parliament has enacted.” (Para 283, p 95)

If there were an appeal, I am sure Vancouver and Burnaby would ask the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse this finding. But since we won in getting the permits quashed, Vancouver will not appeal. If Canada appeals, then these issues could go the other way and we might win on other grounds.

 Where we won:

 We won on two quite different legal arguments.

1)       A failed duty to consult First Nations

 The First Nations arguments landed hard on a completely inadequate effort by the federal government. Kinder Morgan also violated First Nations rights to be properly consulted.

(Note: Canada should have refused to complete the purchase and sale agreement for the 65 year old Transmountain pipeline.  The fact that Kinder Morgan’s own actions were found to have violated FN’s rights and led to the cancellation of the permits would have been a good argument to get out of the contract).

 The Court found that the consultation process framework was well-conceived and should have worked.  They found the members of the federal team to be well-intentioned. They found most phases of consultation worked well.  But the court found that, in its rush to approve the permits, the government fell far short of the mark in dealing with Phase III.  On November 1, 2016, just weeks before granting the permit, Canada made a finding that all the First Nations concerns were for “a minor impact.”   Canada then gave First Nations two weeks to respond. The court found this wholly inadequate.

The court also made it very clear that in finding significant errors in the way the federal government handled Phase III it was not moving the goalposts or setting out new law. It drew attention to the decision rendered five months before in Gitxaala v Canada, 2016 as a clear reference for what the federal government needed to do vis-à-vis Kinder Morgan. At this point in the ruling, I wondered if we still have lawyers in the department of justice that bothered to read court decisions.   

Justice Dawson writes:

 “As this Court explained in Gitxaala at paragraph 279, Canada was required to engage, dialogue and grapple with the concerns expressed in good faith by the indigenous groups impacted by the Project. Meaningful dialogue required someone representing Canada empowered to do more than take notes – someone able to respond meaningfully to the applicants’ concerns at some point in time.” (Para 599, p 204)

And,

“…a review of the record of the consultation process discloses that Canada displayed a closed-mindedness when concerns were expressed about the Board’s report and was reluctant to depart from the findings and recommendations of the Board.  With rare exceptions, Canada did not dialogue meaningfully with the Indigenous applicants about their concerns about the Board’s review…Canada was obliged to do more than passively hear and receive the real concerns of Indigenous applicants.” (Para 603, p 206)

And again, Canada is dressed down:

“By letter dated November 28, 2016 (the day before the Project was approved), Canada, joined by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office, advised that ‘the Governor in Council [Cabinet] cannot impose its own conditions directly on the proponent as part of its decision’ on the certificate of public convenience and necessity [the permits].” (Para 633, page 214)

“This was incorrect. In Gitxaala, at paragraphs 163 to 168, this Court explained that when considering whether Canada has fulfilled its duty to consult, the Governor in Council necessarily has the power to impose conditions…” (Para 634)

“…The record does not contain any explanation as to why Canada did not correct its position after the Gitxaala decision.” (Para 636, p 214).

The Court found Canada was wrong to bunch together all indigenous concerns as generic, instead of dealing with each nation’s concerns separately, as they made strong cases based on the threat poses by the projects to each community and Nation.  For example, Coldwater First Nation was very concerned about its water supply, while others were concerned about the threat of a dilbit spill to marine resources.

2)       An unacceptable refusal to study impacts of marine tanker traffic:

The National Energy Board’s decision to exclude impacts from shipping in its review of Kinder Morgan was a fatal error. This omission effectively torpedoed the NEB’s report to Cabinet and the permits issued on its basis.  The court found that since the NEB report made it clear to Cabinet that any consideration of tanker traffic impacts was excluded, Cabinet should have known it did not have enough information on which to reasonably make a decision.

Canada’s efforts to deflect the risks of tanker traffic with the Oceans Protection Plan werealso rejected:

“I have considered the reference in the Explanatory Note to the Order in Council to the government’s commitment to the proposed Action Plan for the Southern resident killer whale and the then recently announced Oceans Protection Plan. These inchoate initiatives, while laudable and to be encouraged, are by themselves insufficient to overcome the material deficiencies in the Board’s report because the ‘report’ did not permit the Governor in Council to make an informed decision about the public interest and whether the project is likely to cause significant environmental effects as the legislation requires.” (Para 471, page 161)

The court found it wholly unacceptable that by (without reasons) refusing to consider the increased tanker traffic, the NEB went on to conclude that section 79 of the Species at Risk Act did not apply.

“This finding – that the Project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects – was central to its report.  The unjustified failure to assess the effects of Project-related shipping under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and the resulting flawed conclusion about the environmental effects of the Project was critical to the decision of the Governor in Council [cabinet]. With such a flawed report before it, the Governor in Council could not legally make the kin of assessment of the Project’s environmental effects and the public interest that the legislation requires.” (Para 766, page 252)

What’s next:

 1)       Canada could appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Noteworthy is that when the Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the northern Gateway project due to Harper Conservatives violating First Nations rights, the Trudeau government said that was the end of the pipeline. They denied the permit and did not appeal. They would be going against their own precedent by pursuing an appeal on the Kinder Morgan decision.

2)       Canada could follow the court’s ruling:

That would mean re-doing the consultation process found in Phase III as laid out by Canada, and

Re-submitting to the NEB the requirement to re-do the assessment, including re-starting the hearing, for a full examination of the environmental impacts of increased shipping, and

British Columbia potentially re-starting its own independent Environmental Assessment.

(Note: Former premier Christie Clark surrendered this right in her government’s equivalency agreement with Ottawa.  A full and independent environmental assessment is within British Columbia’s provincial jurisdiction.) 

The post Elizabeth explains the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on Kinder Morgan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

You may access group’s final Parliamentary report by clicking here.

If interested, you may also read Elizabeth’s personal account of the trip in her June 2018 householder, available here.

The post Official Report: MPs’ visit to Palestine and Israel (March 30 – April 06, 2018) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If you are an electoral fairness nerd, like me, you’ve been wondering what happened to the Liberals’ last Elections Act amendment package, Bill C-33. C-33 was tabled for First Reading in November 2016 and that’s the last we saw of it.

C-33 undid the Unfair Elections Act. It restored vouching to be sure people are allowed to vote; it restored powers to the Chief Electoral Officer to warn the public of electoral fraud; it restored the rights of Canadians overseas to be able to vote in Canadian elections; it restored the use of the Voter Identification card as a valid piece of ID. On top of these reforms, it also established a new role for Elections Canada – registering young people 16-18 to register to vote in advance of when they gain voting rights at 18.

Everything that was in C-33 is now in C-76. I am very relieved to see those measures moving forward after a year and a half of sitting on a shelf.

As well, C-76 takes aim at the risks posed by mining people’s personal data from on-line profiles or other sources. Personally, I think this would be done more directly by making the Privacy Act apply to political parties. C-76 does this in a more convoluted way to requiring political parties to submit a privacy policy to Elections Canada. C-76 also creates new requirements and penalties for foreign influence, knowingly selling advertising space to foreign entities to allow undue influence or malicious use of computers to manipulate public opinion.

C-76 also takes aim at spending limits and the manipulation by Harper of creating a longer writ period, while also ensuring the Conservatives (and everybody else) could spend more for every additional day from the minimum writ period and receive reimbursement from the people of Canada for 50% of all they spent. The new law will set a maximum writ period of 50 days. As well, we go back to the pre-Harper rule of a fixed amount allowed to be spent in the writ no matter if it is 36 days or 50 days. For the first time, there will also be spending limits of pre-writ spending, defined as from June 30 to the writ drop. No party will be allowed to spend more than $1.5 million in that period. Spending limits are also set pre-writ for Third Parties.

As well, there are new measures to make voting easier for persons with disabilities.

The bill is over 100 pages, so I have left some details out.

I will support the bill and ask for an amendment to make political parties subject to the Privacy Act. I made the same amendment when Harper’s bill was going through the House and not a single MP voted with me… but maybe views will have changed!

The post Elizabeth’s brief summary of Bill C-76 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Bill S-203, Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphin Acts, is strong, spearheading legislation that would protect cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) from the trauma of confinement for human entertainment by banning their captive breeding, imports, exports and live captures. The bill does not stop or impede the rescue, research or rehabilitation of injured individuals and owners of currently captive whales and dolphins would be able to keep them, just not breed them. Former Nova Scotia Senator Willie Moore tabled the bill in 2015 and it has been treading water ever since, until this week.

The bill is evidence-based policy. “Whales and dolphins are highly intelligent, emotional and social creatures that roam vast distances in the sea,” said former Senator Moore. “Science tells us that keeping them in captivity is unjustifiably cruel. Canada’s laws should reflect the evidence.”

In the wild, many cetacean species live their entire lives with their families called pods that may contain up to 100 members. Different pods have their own dialects, whistles particular to their family. Orcas can travel up to 150 kilometres a day, reaching speeds of 45 kilometres an hour and dive more than 200 metres deep. In comparison, “a captive orca’s range is only 1/10,000^th of 1 per cent the size of its natural home range. Just think about that: 1/10,000^th of 1 per cent of its natural home range.”

You can’t swim that far or dive that deep in a concrete tank or swimming pool. A beluga at the Vancouver Aquarium, one of two facilities in Canada that currently holds captive cetaceans, has swum thousands of laps in their tank for years. Their social and physical isolation, dorsal fin collapse, broken teeth, damaged skin, reduced lifespans and stress-induced aggression is morally unacceptable. As former Senator Moore reported from the hearings, “Dr. Lori Marino, a leading cetacean scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia… believes that captive cetaceans have attempted suicide by beating their heads against the walls of pools and leaping from their tanks.” It is way past time for this legislation, thousands of Canadians agree.

The committee has received overwhelming support from Canadians to pass S-203. Senator Murray Sinclair, who took over the bill’s sponsorship upon Senator Moore’s retirement, reports that public support for the bill is immense. “Each of us on the committee have probably received a few thousand emails, generally in support of the bill. There are quite a few Canadians out there who want this to pass. I recognize the importance of it.”

Concerning whales and dolphins in captivity, politics and legislation is lagging far behind the general public. It is past time for our laws to catch up.

‘Un-understandable’ opposition

Yet despite the overwhelming public support for the bill and abundant scientific research, S-203 has faced unyielding opposition from Conservative Senators, led by Conservative Senate Whip Don Plett who has made a mission of killing the bill.

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies CEO Barbara Cartwright is concerned about Senator Plett and the Conservatives continuing antics, as their “‘un-understandable defense of Marineland, almost as if they’re lobbying on behalf of Marineland, seems to me to be an issue or a problem with the way the process is happening.” MP Elizabeth May agrees. On September 13^th, she sent a letter to Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd raising concerns about possible past and continuing breaches of the Lobbying Act regarding Bill S-203 and calling for an investigation into the Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium’s conduct. Despite a lack of registered lobbying of public office holders related to the bill, “there is evidence to suspect that significant lobbying of at least one and possibly additional senators by Marineland, or on its behalf by its agents, has occurred in relation to Bill S-203,” May said. iPolitics reports that, “The complaint cites several reasons to suspect improper lobbying: social media posts (some of which have since been deleted), comments made by senators at committee, professionally-prepared letters sent to all senators by both facilities and a grassroots letter-writing campaign aimed at senators organized by the aquarium.”

Senator Plett is implicated in many of these cases, as several times in committee he has cited content that Marineland may have provided and attacked witnesses’ credibility based on detailed information reflecting the park’s claims in ongoing litigation. In May 2016 he was also among a group of Conservative senators who visited the Vancouver Aquarium but disregarded to make note of it in the public record. Senator Plett has made multiple attempts to halt the bill’s progress through the Senate, which thus far have failed. Before it was referred to committee, Plett and other Conservative senators made a hoist amendment, an extraordinary measure to defeat it at second reading. In committee, Plett made further efforts to stop it from being referred back to the Senate by requesting another round of consultation, despite the extensive testimonies already given.

The bill swims on back to the Senate

Plett and the Conservatives made some legitimate complaints regarding the bill but as their colleagues on the committee noted, all those issues could be solved by amendments. And on October 27^th, 2017 they were, as Senator Sinclair proposed those amendments and by a vote of 9-5 all of them were accepted. A primary objection to the bill’s original state was that it did not account for Indigenous treaty rights and consultations. One of the clauses Sinclair introduced recognizes those treaty rights and s. 35 of the Constitution, “to ensure that Indigenous people in Canada know this is not intended to derogate rights that are protected under s.35,” he said. Five indigenous senators consequently voted in favour of Sinclair’s amendments and to move the bill forward.

This is a great step forward but the bill is far from passed and cetaceans far from being protected. Immense public support for S-203 helped move it through the committee and that backing must be maintained to ensure the bill makes it the rest of the way through the Senate and House of Commons. Please write to the Senate. Write to your Member of Parliament. Make sure every representative knows how much you care about keeping whales, dolphins and porpoises out of captivity.

As former Senator Elizabeth Hubley wrote in an iPolitics opinion piece supporting the bill, “Times change and the entertainment value of watching whales and dolphins swim circles in concrete tanks should be ending, too – just like this legislative circus.” Because this is how we should see whales, dolphins and porpoises. In the wide wild ocean, with their families.

Suggested Text for a Petition

 Whereas:

•  Whales and dolphins are intelligent, social, and roaming creatures;
• Scientific evidence shows that they suffer unjustifiably when kept in display tanks; and
• The practice of keeping them in display tanks is plainly cruel.

We, the undersigned, citizens or residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to expeditiously pass Bill S-203, Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act, tabled in the Senate by former Senator Wilfred Moore, when the bill reaches the House of Commons. Please do the right thing and support this evidence-based policy.

Links to Wildlife and Animal Advocacy Groups

The Whale Sanctuary Project’s mission is to establish a model seaside sanctuary where cetaceans (whales and dolphins) who are being retired from entertainment facilities or have been rescued from the ocean and need rehabilitation or permanent care can live in an environment that maximizes well-being, autonomy and is as close as possible to their natural habitat. Composed of experts in the fields of marine mammal science and behaviour, veterinary medicine, husbandry, engineering, law and policy, the group seeks to lay the groundwork for the creation of permanent cetacean sanctuaries.

Zoocheck is a Canadian-based international wildlife protection charity established in 1984 to promote and protect the interests and well-being of wild animals. One of their current campaigns is to raise public awareness about the capture, import and display of cetaceans for public display and entertainment in Canada.

Campobello Whale Rescue Team (CWRT) is a volunteer organization that consists primarily of fishermen, a biologist and other volunteers. Trained and experienced in using specialized equipment to disentangle whales from fishing gear, the CWRT works with weir owners to release trapped whales. The CWRT is licensed and permitted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to conduct whale disentanglement and release operations in the Bay of Fundy and adjacent waters off Nova Scotia and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Animal Justice leads the legal fight for animals in Canada. Their lawyers work to pass strong new animal protection legislation, push for the prosecution of animal abusers and fight for animals in court.

The Wilderness Committee was founded in 1980 is a non-profit staffed by over 60,00 staff, volunteers and activists working to preserve wilderness, protect wildlife, defend parks, safeguard public resources and fight for a stable and healthy climate. Among their current priorities is protecting the southern resident orcas living in the international waters between BC and Washington State.

Orca Conservancy is an all-volunteer non-profit organization is based in Washington State that works to protect orcas and the wild places in which they live. Collaborating with some of the world’s top research institutions and environmental groups, the organization is currently focused on the endangered southern resident orcas, J-Pod, K-Pod and L-Pod, who inhabit inland waters of Washington State and BC.

The post Backgrounder: Bill S-203 Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphin Acts appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Below you will find information on how this crisis began and what you can do to help.

Background

Myanmar is a majority Buddhist country of 51.5 million people in Southeast Asia. The country has a tumultuous history of colonial occupation, civil war, and military dictatorship. In 2015, the country’s first democratically-elected leader, the freedom fighter and now Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, took office.

The Rohingya are a minority Muslim population in Myanmar, numbering over 1 million people. The government and military powers have systematically denied the Rohingyas’ basic human rights to clean water, education, healthcare, and food security. This is premised on a false classification of this group as stateless Bengali Muslims, in spite of documentation of their existence in the area of modern-day Rakhine State going back to 1799. Nonetheless, the Rohingya were excluded from the 1982 Citizenship Laws. Without a state to recognize them as citizens and therefore as rights-bearing individuals, the Rohingya have fallen prey to political whims and social prejudice.

Scapegoating this community has become a popular mechanism for political parties to consolidate power. Thus the Rohingya have suffered unrelenting brutality at the hands of the state police and military officials, who act with impunity. Conditions of extreme deprivation are ripe for radicalisation. Frustrated and without the means to protest politically, groups of militant Rohingya have lashed out violently. But always the police state retaliates with overwhelming force.

Further Reading: Countdown to Annihilation: Genocide in Myanmar by Penny Green, Thomas MacManus and Alicia de la Cour Venning (International State Crime Initiative, 2015)

What’s Happening Now

On August 25th, the Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army, a militant group, attacked an army base in northern Myanmar. The response from Myanmar’s army, police, and mobs of ethnic Rakhine is and has been a total massacre. Villages have been burned, Rohingya shot at, infants beheaded, rape weaponized. As of this Thursday, 480 000 have fled across the border to Bangladesh, doubling the Rohingya refugee population there in one month. It is estimated that more than 500 000 Rohingya are still in Myanmar. Meanwhile,  Aung San Suu Kyi has either dismissed the reports as fake news or branded the Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army as a terrorist group against which military force was justified.

What You Can Do

Contact your MP

Write or call your MP. Ask them what they will do to help. Request that they consider Elizabeth’s three proposals:

1. Canada can offer military assistance, expertise and financial support for removing landmines. Visit the International Campaign to Ban Landmines for more information.
2. Clear the way for NGO’s and civil society organizations to get in on the ground and provide assistance, food, and medicine on the Bangladeshi side of the border.
3. Pressure Aung San Suu Ky as an honorary Canadian citizen to stand up for the human rights of all people, including and especially the targeted Muslim minority in Myanmar.

Support

Islamic Relief Canada and Islamic Circle of North America’s Canadian chapter are the only Canadian aid agencies to have gained access to the crisis on the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. Read about their work with the Rohingya here.

One Nation has been working on the border of Bangladesh and Myanmar since last December. Following the latest influx of refugees crossing the border, they have launched an appeal for donations.

The International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are among the world’s oldest and most respected humanitarian organizations. They welcome donations of both time and funds.

The International Rescue Committee does incredible work with refugees around the world.

Fortify Rights works to prevent and remedy human rights violations by documenting abuses and providing customized technical support to human rights defenders on the ground.

The Nexus Group have made the Rohingya a high priority.

The post Situation in Myanmar: Information and Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Rather, it is one of a family of existential afflictions, including a massive and accelerating loss of biodiversity, acute ecological overshoot, and intensifying social inequities – emergent from the same underlying pathology. And while some climate mitigation pathways address multiple symptoms synergistically, others exacerbate them.

We find ourselves at a crossroads, in need of a map clearly depicting the landscape and a compass to guide us. In this talk I’ll introduce one such map – a framework of ‘planetary boundaries’ … and one such compass – the concept of a safe operating space for all people. What yet remains is the active participation of a broad spectrum of society to keep the full suite of so- called “wicked” socio-environmental problems clearly in focus as we plot a course forward.

Dr. Robert Davies is a Utah-trained physicist and educator whose work focuses on synthesizing and communicating a broad range of research – including climate, energy, agriculture, economics, and complex systems. His published works include research in the fields of spacecraft / space environment interactions; the fundamental nature of light and information; and Earth’s climate system. He is also co-creator of The Crossroads Project, a collaborative communication project combining a hard science narrative with evocative imagery and powerful music, bringing to bear the power of performance art on the topic of human sustainability.

Dr. Davies is an Associate of the Utah Climate Center and adjunct professor in Utah State University’ Department of Plants, Soils and Climate. He has taught on the faculty of three universities; worked as project scientist for Utah State University’s Space Dynamics Laboratory; as technical liaison for NASA’s International Space Station project; and served as an officer and meteorologist in the United States Air Force. He lives and works in Logan.

Rob Davies, Physicist, Utah Climate Center daviesre@mac.com

The post Recommended Viewing: Dr Robert Davies – The Great Big Context of Climate Disruption appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The keynote, based on the book ‘Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation’ assert that four technology categories will disrupt energy and transportation by:

1- Batteries / Energy Storage
2- Electric Vehicles
3- Self-Driving Vehicles
4- Solar Energy

The outcome of the Clean Disruption is that by 2030:

• All new vehicles will be electric.
• All new vehicles will be autonomous (self-driving).
• Oil will be obsolete
• Coal, natural gas and nuclear will be obsolete
• 80+ per cent of parking spaces will be obsolete.
• Individual car ownership will be obsolete.
• All new energy will be provided by solar (and wind)

Clean Disruption is a technology disruption. Just like digital cameras disrupted film and the web disrupted publishing, Clean Disruption is inevitable and it will be swift.

Copyright © 2016 by Tony Seba

More info at: http://tonyseba.com

The post Recommended Viewing: Tony Seba – Clean Disruption – Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

While investor-state agreements are sometimes associated – or even confused – with free trade agreements, they are not the same. A trade agreement opens up areas, or sectors, of national economies to allow other countries access. An investor-state agreement is different. For example, the Canada-China Investment Treaty does not open any new sectors to trade. China still refuses foreign investment in its energy sector – while at the same time it makes major purchases of Canadian energy companies.

An investor-state agreement gives a foreign company (an “investor”) the right to seek damages from a country (a “state”) in private arbitrations. These are not court actions, although the word “sue” is often used. These are claims for damages arbitrated by a panel of three arbitration lawyers – usually in a posh hotel room somewhere. The first investor-state agreement in the world was Chapter 11 of NAFTA. In the late 1990s, an attempt was made through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to extend Chapter 11 principles to all industrialized countries. The OECD proposal was called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (the MAI). In what is viewed as the first global citizens’ campaign using the internet effectively, the MAI was defeated. The pro-MAI community then turned to advancing bi-lateral investment treaties. The Canada-China Investment Treaty is one such effort.

Why should Canadians care about investor-state treaties?

One of the issues that was frequently raised in the last round of town hall meetings I held with constituents in January 2013 was the threat of the Canada-China Investment Treaty. As I write this, the treaty has still not been ratified. While this is very good news, the treaty could be ratified at any time by a decision of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. If ratified, the treaty would be binding on Canada and on future Canadian governments for a minimum of 31 years.

Meanwhile, there have been a number of interesting developments in countries around the world related to this type of treaty, often called a Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPPA or FIPA). Australia recently undertook a cost-benefit study of investment treaties, which showed that these treaties create far greater costs than benefits. Since this study, Australia has taken a new and strong position: they have decided not to enter into any new FIPAs. Similarly, India also recently decided that it would not only reject any new investor-state treaties, it would also attempt to re-negotiate any existing treaties that contained investor state clauses. India’s new stance may come as a surprise to the PM as it was just last fall that Stephen Harper returned from India claiming a Canada-India Investor-State agreement was just around the corner. Meanwhile, South Africa is also reconsidering its investor-state agreements, and a recent international report which makes clear the social and monetary costs of these agreements is likely to influence other nations to also reconsider entering into investor-state agreements.

Are these cases taken to court?

No. They go to an arbitration. Three international lawyers hear the case, usually in a hotel room. There are no appeals. There is no access to a Canadian court before being thrust into arbitration.

While “international arbitration” may sound fair and neutral, the reality is different. A recent report, “Profiting from Injustice: How law firms, arbitrators and financiers are fuelling an investment arbitration boom,” (Corporate Europe Observatory, Transnational Institute, Brussels, Amsterdam, November 2012), provides some disturbing details of the world of global arbitration.

The report concluded that:

“Rather than acting as fair and neutral intermediaries, it has become clear that the arbitration industry has a vested interest in perpetuating an investment regime that prioritises the rights of investors at the expense of democratically elected national governments…”

Here are some of the report’s key findings:

• There is a huge increase in the number of such cases — from 38 cases in 1996, to 450 in 2011;
• The cost to a country of fighting an investor challenge is on average $8 million (US$), and rise to over $30 million (US$) in some cases;
• Elite arbitration lawyers charge as much as $1,000/hour;
• Poor countries have to spend scarce resources on lawyers to battle global multi-nationals. For example, the Philippines spent $58 million defending a claim by German airport operator Fraport. That amount of money could have paid the salaries of 12,500 school teachers for the year;
• A small group of elite international lawyers handle a large proportion of the cases. 15 lawyers alone decided 55% of all known investor-state disputes; and
• They are often associated with firms that advise governments to enter into such treaties.

After I read this report, I raised the issue on the floor of the House, suggesting international investment treaties put us in the hands of “global ambulance chasers.” I think most MPs simply do not understand what we are granting the People’s Republic of China in this investment treaty. But the decision to ratify will not be made by Parliament. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet can decide through an Order in Council.

“When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all […] Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.” – Juan Fernandez-Armesto, arbitrator from Spain

Why is the Canada-China Investment Treaty worse than NAFTA Chapter 11?

1. NAFTA can be exited with six months written notice; the investment treaty with China is in force for 15 years, then Canada or China could give a one year written notice to exit, but all existing investments would be grandfathered for a further 15 years (31 year “lock-in”);
2. Even though it is egregious that US (or theoretically Mexican) corporations can bring multi-million dollar claims against Canada for laws passed with no intent to discriminate in trade terms, the “investors” from China are not individual corporations. State Owned Enterprises (SEOs) of the People’s Republic of China are all branches of the government, with boards and CEOs appointed by the politburo of the Communist Party of China;
3. Under the Canada-China FIPA all claims begin with six months of diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute. Under such a provision, the larger economic party, China, would be able to link all its investments in Canada into a serious threat for economic retaliation. This is not something a US-based firm would be capable of doing under NAFTA, and, in any event, a diplomatic process is not part of NAFTA.

Is an Investor-State Agreement necessary to pursue trade?

No. Even though Australia does not have an investor-state treaty with China, they lead the globe in Chinese investment.

In 2012, investment from China to Australia stood at $51 billion (US), eclipsing the United States ($50.7 billion) and far surpassing Canada ($36.7 billion).

Source: KPMG – Demystifying Chinese Investment, August 2012

In the House of Commons – Hearings on the Canada-China Investment Treaty

April 22, 2013

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all members of this House a happy Earth Day. Today is the 43rd anniversary of that celebration, but please excuse me if I do not feel like celebrating. The only motion before us today that has any environmental content is the NDP motion from its last opposition day to block ratification of the Canada–China Investment Treaty.

We should all be voting to block ratification, but I can predict as of now that the motion will be defeated, and that is going to be a terrible shame because it will mean that this House has not had a single proper day of hearings, not one day of expert witnesses coming here to tell us what we need to know about this extraordinary treaty that will give the People’s Republic of China and its Communist Party government the right to sue us and lock us in for 31 years.

NAFTA locks us in for six months. The new treaty that was tabled after the Chinese treaty locks us in for 16 years. However, there was not one day of hearings on this. I urge members, before it is too late, to let us find a way to have hearings.

(Video available online at www.elizabethmaymp.ca/parliament/statements/2013/04/22/statement-international-trade)

The post Backgrounder – Investor-State Treaties appeared first on Elizabeth May.