From June 6-8, 2017, I attended the United Nations for the special High-Level United Nations Oceans Conference. Without a doubt, it sparked the greatest global focus to date on our oceans – and on World Oceans Day, June 8^th.  The conference was in the context of the Sustainable Development goal for healthy oceans, co-chaired by Fiji and Sweden.  The success of the gathering was that the issues were not merely discussed; numerous partnerships and projects were announced and funded.

What was striking was the complexity of the issues and threats facing the great blue world of our planet. I kept thinking about the oceans agenda as it existed at the time of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.  Key issues then were over-fishing, endangered marine species – particularly threatened whales and dolphin species, and land-based sources of marine pollution.  All those issues are still on the agenda in 2017, but more pressing issues have been added to the list. Much of the focus of the United Nations conference was on the growing problem of plastic pollution of the oceans.  Between micro-beads added to toothpaste and facial creams to plastic bags and water bottles, 8 million tonnes of plastic is discarded every year into the world’s oceans.  Fish ingest the plastics. Sea turtles and sea birds as well as fish are killed by plastics and the problem is getting worse.  The UN meetings launched a Clean Seas Campaign to directly attack the problem- calling for countries to take action against single-use plastic consumer goods, ban microbeads and find ways to clean up existing plastic contamination.

As well, the conference dealt with the negative impacts from global climate change and warming ocean temperatures and its evil twin – ocean acidification caused not by warming, but by physical mixing of atmospheric carbon into ocean water, creating carbonic acid that can melt the shells of ocean creatures.  All nations (except the USA) re-confirmed the importance of the Paris Agreement.

The issue of over-fishing is increasingly presented as the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries got action from the FAO. The FAO led the negotiation of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA).  I keep looking back to the UN Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and believing it, if properly implemented, could end high-seas illegal fisheries.  We have a long way to go to end the horrific rates of destruction of species, in some cases form off-shore draggers enslaving human beings as crew.  No more desperate state for humans exists on the planet as for those slaves held at sea for years working in appalling conditions – with punishment for complaint a swift death at sea.

Canada’s delegation at the UN Conference was led by Minister of Fisheries Dominic Leblanc and included Members of Parliament from the Liberals, Conservatives, the Bloc and Green Parties.  Minister Leblanc’s main focus was on the marine biodiversity challenge and Canada’s commitment to 10% of our coastal areas to be within some form of protection by 2020, with 5% by the end of this year.  The goal is complicated by having several federal mechanisms for protection.  In Saanich-Gulf Islands, we wait for the completion of the National Marine Conservation Area in the Salish Sea (still referred to by government as Southern Strait of Georgia).  The proposal was endorsed in 1970 by no less than Jacques Cousteau, yet here we are in 2017 with no clear indication of a time line to conclude protection.  Clearly, the process must be aligned closely with the nation-to nation negotiation and recognition of sovereignty of the many coastal indigenous nations that have navigated and fished these waters for thousands of years.  But we should be making it a priority. This marine protection is under the jurisdiction of Environment and Climate Change, within Parks Canada. As well, Environment Canada has jurisdiction over Marine Wildlife Areas. Meanwhile, DFO has jurisdiction over Marine Protected Areas under the terms of Oceans Act.

On June 15, amendments to the Oceans Act were tabled for First Reading. The changes focus primarily on modernizing and expediting the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).  While there are more changes I would like to see (such as ensuring MPAs have the goal of protecting ecological integrity), overall, the amendments are encouraging.  Under the proposed changes to the Oceans Act, the pace of creating MPAs (currently, on average, at least a 7 year process) will be speeded up.  The minister will be empowered to designate Interim Marine Protected Areas. Under the proposed process the government will have five years to develop the regulations that transition an interim area into a permanent MPA. New and damaging activities proposed for areas being considered for interim MPA status  — such as fisheries, seismic testing, undersea mining and offshore oil and gas extraction —  may be immediately restricted when the Minister acts to create interim protection. Existing fisheries activities in these areas may also be restricted. Still, it is the case that any and all of marine protections in Canada do not necessarily preclude any human activity. Most protect existing economic activities.

I was particularly pleased that the Oceans Act amendments include changes to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. Once approved through parliament, there will be a new legal authority to prohibit new oil and gas activities in MPAs with the Minister having the power to cancel existing oil and gas interests in MPAs, with financial compensation.

Humanity is in a desperate race against time to save the lives of our oceans, and ourselves.  This month, most nations took real steps in that race.

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post Island Tides: Movement for Oceans appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May
April 27, 2017

The post Island Tides: Another Liberal promise about to be broken on Canada’s navigable waters? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I try to avoid any partisan tinge to my columns in Island Tides, but I hope you will forgive me this one time sharing the inspiring experience of the recent Global Greens Congress in Liverpool, U.K.

Not surprisingly, Green members from around the world are keen to avoid excess flights and the GHG emitted to gather from around the world.  So the Global Green Congress only takes place every five years.  The only one I had previously attended was in Sao Paulo, Brazil in 2007.  The 2012 congress, in Senegal, conflicted with my work in Parliament.  And since that time, I took on the position of co-chair of the Global Greens Parliamentarians Association, so this was an invitation I couldn’t refuse.

It was the largest gathering in our history – 2000 Greens from every continent. Over 100 countries were represented.  Our Global Greens Parliamentarians Association benefitted from having more Green national-level MPs all in the same room than we have ever had before.  With a total of just under 400 Green MPs from around the world, not all of them were able to attend.  But we had MP participation from Congo, Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Spain, Chad, Colombia, Mexico, New Zealand (with charismatic co-leader, young Maori woman, Metiria Turei), Australia’s elected Green Senators, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Latvia, Iceland, Scotland, France, Belgium, UK and Wales, the lone Green MP Yael Cohen Paran in the Knesset of Israel, and many Green Members of the European Parliament. With my European Green colleagues, we strategized about how to stop CETA. They are the only ones who can.

Our hosts, the Greens of England and Wales, are struggling with the aftermath of Brexit.  Still, the only Green MP in Westminster, co-leader Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton-Pavilion, gave a brilliant speech, finding hope “amid the rubble.”

Greens serving in coalition governments had a harder time getting away, but six Green ministers from the Swedish government participated, including Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin. The Minister of Environment from Luxembourg Green MP Carole Dieschbourg presented on our chances of reaching the Paris target of 1.5 degrees.

But missing were the co-leaders of the Greens of the Netherlands.  Fresh from their fantastic election result, in which the alt-right and racist policies of Geert Wilders’s Dutch Freedom Party were rejected and the Greens leapt from four seats to fourteen, the Left-Greens of the Netherlands were at home, negotiating whether they will have a role in a coalition government.  (Shades of “Borgen” – highly recommended Danish drama, if you haven’t seen it!)

Dutch Left-Green leader Jesse Klavers, 30 years old, with a mixed heritage of Moroccan, Indonesian and Dutch, has proclaimed that the Greens are the antidote to right wing populism. “What I would say to all my left-wing friends in Europe: don’t try to fake the populace,” he said. “Stand for your principles. Be straight. Be pro-refugee. Be pro-European. We’re gaining momentum in the polls. You can stop populism.”

The topic of electoral reform was very much on the Liverpool agenda.  We had a panel discussion on the state of play in gaining fair voting, with those who lack it, former UK Green leader Natalie Bennett, Jill Stein of the US Greens and me learning from Metiria Turei how proportional representation has changed the culture of New Zealand politics.  I was surprised how many Greens from around the world knew about Justin Trudeau’s broken promise for fair voting.  They, like so many Canadians, were angry and disappointed.

In that light, the results in the Netherlands are worth sharing widely in Canada.  Trudeau has wrongly claimed that proportional representation will allow extremist parties to gain power.  But the opposite is true. Without the pressure created by First Past the Post – to unite the Right – extremist parties like Wilders are kept out of power.  If Canada had had proportional representation, the Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party could have co-existed.  The hostile take-over of the PC Party by Alliance essentially moved our whole political spectrum to the right.  And with the perversity of FPTP and false majority rule, Stephen Harper who never had the support of more than 24% of Canadians, ruled with a majority. (24% being the actual population represented by the Conservatives’ 39% popular vote in 2011 with only 60% of Canadians voting.).

In contrast, the Dutch election had a turn-out of 81.9%.  Even if Wilders’ party had come in first, it would have had no chance of gaining more than 35 seats – 40 short of being able to form government.  And none of the other parties in the Netherlands were willing to touch his brand of alt-right populism. It is a shame that, coming in fourth, Wilders won 19 seats, but with Greens in fifth place having 14 seats and mainstream and left parties carrying the majority, it is a sure thing that the new coalition will stand firm against his anti-immigration “Dutch-first” policies.

The theme of global solidarity for a compassionate agenda, respecting human rights, moving aggressively to phase out fossil fuels, end poverty, to eliminate all nuclear weapons, and to empower real grassroots democracy was a shared theme of the Global Greens.  We are a global movement.

Caroline Lucas spoke for us all “We stand against everything the Trump agenda stands for….” And former Australian Green leader, Christine Milne, “The future will be Green, or it will not be at all.”

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post Island Tides: Report from the world’s largest ever gathering of Greens! appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On March 22, Finance Minister Bill Morneau came out with his government’s second budget.

The big numbers spin around some ambitious announcements.

• On Housing: a National Housing Strategy including $5 billion National Housing Fund, plus $3.2 billion over the next 11 years for provinces and territories on affordable housing, $300 million for northern housing, $225 million on housing for indigenous people not on reserves and another $2.1 billion for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Plus $202 million to use surplus federal lands and make them available for housing;
• On Child Care: $7 billion over ten years to support and create affordable child care spaces;
• On Health: $5 billion in home care and mental health, as well as $644 in drugs and prescription medications strategy;
• For Via Rail: $867 million over three years vaguely described as “for operations and capital requirements;”
• For Parks Canada: $364 million over the next two years;
• On climate action, over $1 billion in commitments to greener infrastructure, light rail, energy efficient transportation, infrastructure for electric vehicles;
• For Public Transit, over $20 billion over 11 years for federal-provincial-territorial cooperation;
• Billions in several different funds for clean tech entrepreneurs, venture capital and super clusters.

For the most part the billions announced in budget 2016 are now getting more details in budget 2017.  But there is much to dig into.  Some of the funds will be spent soon, with money starting to flow this year.  But for most of the spending, funds do not begin to flow until budget year 2018-19, with most of the funds slated for spending after the 2019 election.   For example, of the over $20 billion for public transit, less than $1 billion will be spent before 2019.  For electric vehicle infrastructure, no more than $30 million will be spent before the next election. On child care spaces, no money flows until 2018-19 ($540 million).  For mental health and home care, just over 20% of promised funding will be spent before the next election.

I would have preferred the announced dollars were clearly presented.  The spending is better than nothing, but reading the budget is an exercise in chasing down the truth.  I don’t like the feeling someone is trying to trick me.

Funds committed to be rolled out immediately include the Via Rail and Parks Canada commitments.  With almost $300 million in new money for three years in a row for Via, I am hoping we can get the long-sought support to restore rail service on Vancouver Island.  With the right schedule, to suit commuters, we should be able to get hundreds of thousands of cars off the road.

Most of the Parks Canada money is for capital acquisition and not expanding the Parks operating budget, raising my hopes we may be able to purchase Owl Island off Salt Spring Island to expand Gulf Island National Park.  Certainly, Parks Canada was a big winner in this budget.

As well, an $80 million commitment was announced to rebuild and upgrade Sidney’s Plant Health Centre right here in Saanich-Gulf Islands, the one I succeeded in keeping open after the Harper government announced its closure.  The funds will run for five years, with spending starting this year. This exciting announcement will significantly boost the scientific research capacity of our local quarantine centre for plant viruses.

Other items in the budget of local interest include “a comprehensive plan to address derelict and abandoned vessels.”  This is part of the Ocean Protection Plan.  The previously announced $1.5 billion in spending is re-announced, but without details as to how much funding will go to the various components of the plan, including derelict vessels.

What was not in the budget?  I had been sure that climate measures that had been in pre-Harper budgets would be restored, such as Eco-Energy Retrofits and rebates for buying more fuel efficient or electric vehicles.

I am extremely disappointed that Morneau did not announce the change in the pension rules in the Superannuation Act for veterans and others who marry after 60 (the so-called “Gold-digger clause”).  I have been trying to get every finance minister since Jim Flaherty to eliminate this archaic rule.  I finally received a written commitment from Finance Minister Morneau that this was now government policy, but it did not happen.

Fossil fuels subsidies continue, but at a lower level.  The elimination of the tax credit for oil and gas discovery wells is a good start, cutting $150 million/year in public funds to fossil fuels. But billions continue to go to oil sands and fracked natural gas. Overall, the Trudeau administration continues to say the right things about climate, but without any degree of urgency.  Approving projects that increase greenhouse gas emissions while trying to reduce emissions with programmes that do not kick in for several years is a prescription for failure.   We need a tougher target and more disciplined, government-wide efforts to meet it.

And the big fiscal question: when will the budget be balanced?  At some point the government will need to re-examine its revenue requirements.  Those are our requirements to ensure our society is resilient, equitable and functions well.  This may mean going back to look at the GST, raise taxes on our largest corporations, such as the banks.  But no one in politics, except me, seems willing to say the obvious.  We cannot constantly cheer for tax cuts if we want to ensure fairness, health and the common good.

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post Island Tides: What’s in the 2017 budget? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We are in a post-truth era.  President Trump denounces journalists as “enemies of the people” and any inconvenient truths as “fake news.”

There is such a thing as “fake news.”  I first encountered it back in 2009 in the midst of the disastrous climate talks in Copenhagen.  I knew immediately that it was a hoax and I thought it was brilliant.  It was a meticulously designed sting intended to expose Harper’s climate obstructionism.  It came in several parts: first, a news release that perfectly mimicked Environment Canada committing Canada to deep reductions in GHG; second, a further release carrying reaction from other delegations to the “news” from Canada, then, a link to what appeared to be Environment Canada’s website with more details, and lastly a link to a perfect replica of the Wall Street Journal’s home page, confirming the news.

Within hours, the “Yes Men,” a self-described “culture jamming activist duo,” claimed credit.  While I was revelling in their strategies, I should have been quaking in my boots.  What if such tactics were used, not as hoaxes to be unveiled by those seeking truth, but by those planning to cover the truth under mountains of lies?

“Fake news” in our current context is conveyed like a virus. It looks like the real thing and carries outrageous and untrue nonsense presented as fact.  In the US election campaign, the claims that President Obama had banned the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, that Hillary Clinton planned to limit Christian right to worship, and Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump appeared on the internet with the look of real news.  Not a shred of truth to any of the claims. The appropriation of mastheads of real news outlets was used to convey credibility. Who knows how much that trickery impacted the election.

But now in office, Trump is benefiting from the term “fake news.”  He has appropriated it, quite wrongly, to articles focussing on his administration’s ties to Russia.  Are the claims inaccurate?  He can dispute that.  But it is even more dangerous that he labels it “fake news.”  By definition, “fake news” is not what appears in newspapers written by reporters working for those papers.  That is real news, whether it contains errors or displays biases, it is not “fake.”

Reporters can make mistakes. Those mistakes are usually corrected with retractions. Where there is room for debate, traditionally, both sides of the story are given a voice.  The purpose of journalism is to inform an interested and engaged citizenry.  It is an essential element of a healthy democracy.

What is happening in the US is dangerous, but it is also happening here.

There is a growing number of websites that do not fall into the “fake news” category because they do not pretend to be the home pages of real newspapers.  They do pretend to be news sources.  They create an echo chamber where those who are interested in a topic of concern and feel the mainstream media is not giving them the “truth.”  Several of my constituents have sent me articles from US based webpages that were new to me- The American Thinker and the Gatestone Institute. The content was disturbing. The focus was on creating fear, distrust and hatred of “other” peoples, particularly Muslims.  Within Canada, Ezra Lavant and his so-called Rebel Media are doing the same.  And they have seized on an entirely innocuous, non-controversial motion in Parliament to create fear and division.

Motion 103 was put forward by Liberal MP, Iqra Khalid in December 2016. A motion is not a bill. It does not create laws; it does not bind governments. Khalid’s motion recognizes a rising threat of Islamophobia and calls on the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”

It is clear, that whether caused by Trump’s ascendency or merely a free rider of newly empowered hate and racism, there is also a rise in anti-Semitism, with attacks even on the front doors of rabbis. But if anyone needed proof of an increased level of threat to Muslims, the murder of six men, killed while at prayer in their local mosque, is more than enough reason to reach out and assure Muslim Canadians of their place in our hearts and our society.   It was shattering to be at the Quebec City vigil, among the friends and families of those who were killed and of the many more who still lay in hospital.

Sensible conservative voices, such as leadership candidate Michael Chong and prominent columnist Andrew Coyne (who wrote: “the notion that this amounts to ‘singling out’ one religion for ‘special privileges,’ as some have claimed, is specious”) are drowned out by those claiming that Motion 103 will bring in Sharia law. Or that it will place Islam “above” other religions.

For those whose agenda is to attack decency with every tool available to them, Motion 103 was a gift. Ezra Lavant – who styles himself “Rebel Commander” – organized a rally in Toronto and trotted out the Conservative candidates willing to help him shovel his brand of filth.

I will vote for Motion 103, which, unfortunately, due to the hierarchy of private members motions, will not come to a vote for months.  I voted for a similar Conservative motion, decrying the rise in extremism and discrimination more generally, as it is entirely sensible and does not contradict anything in motion 103. So too did the entire NDP caucus.

Please, where you find a friend or neighbour drawn in by the propaganda of the fear-mongers, respond helpfully. Direct them to reliable news sources and Conservative voices with integrity. Do not denounce, for it only feeds the notion that free speech is at risk. But equally do not let lies go unchallenged.  As Kai Nagata wrote on this very issue (the National Observer) “Hate thrives when Love and Honour fall asleep.”

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post Island Tides: Fake news, propaganda and motion 103 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I t was a massive blow to my faith in Trudeau’s good intentions when he re-wrote the mandate letter to the Minister of Democratic Institutions to remove the responsibility for bringing in a new voting system.

Since then, he has offered up one excuse after another. It has been, as you can imagine, profoundly discouraging to hear Justin Trudeau, having broken faith with his own promise of electoral reform, offer up increasingly desperate excuses.

I have referred to his explanations in townhall meetings as ‘grasping at straws.’ It made me wonder about the origins of the idiom ‘grasping at straws’. Was it like the proverbial ‘straw man’—a rhetorical argument set up to be knocked down? Or like a straw in the wind? The straw poll or straw vote… or in this case, was it really the last straw?

Turns out, the phrase ‘grasping at straws’ comes from a proverb quoted in the 1748 novel, Clarissa, by Samuel Richardson: ‘A drowning man will catch at a straw, the proverb well says.’ So our Prime Minister is a drowning man. No wonder his excuses smack of futile desperation.

At first it was only that he could not see a ‘way forward’. He complained that Canadians had not achieved consensus. Of course, the government had not put in place any mechanism for finding consensus.

The parliamentary committee on which I served was not mandated to test for consensus. We were instructed to look at the evidence and make recommendations for the system to replace First Past the Post. The Liberals ‘mydemocracy.ca’ survey never even asked the key question: ‘Do you want to replace FPTP? If so, what system do you want?’

Even so, 70% of the hundreds of thousands of respondents made it clear they preferred proportional representation. When given a choice between a parliament where many parties have to work together to reach compromise through cooperation, even if it took longer, that approach was preferred over one large party making decisions with accountability.

Since breaking his word with Canadians, the Prime Minister has been increasingly clear that his preferred system was ranked ballots. I was open to ranked ballots. It seemed reasonable that being able to rank your choices on ballots would be an improvement.

But all the evidence before the Parliamentary Committee was that the only system guaranteed to produce more perverse results than our current system was ranked ballots. It would distort the will of the voters even more than First Past the Post.

With no evidence to support this system, and numerous witnesses to the effect that ranked ballots would tend towards giving the Liberals an even greater share of seats without public support, not only did the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Greens oppose ranked ballots, so too did the Liberals on the committee.

On his northern swing of townhalls, in Iqaluit and Yellowknife, the prime minister has become even more critical of the recommendation of the vast majority of the witnesses to our committee and to our recommendation for proportional representation.

Here Are His Claims And My Rebuttals:

Trudeau: Proportional representation will increase the risk of extremist parties gaining seats in Parliament:

Rebuttal: The parliamentary committee specifically rejected the system used in Israel and Italy where votes are cast for the party of choice with as little as 2% of the vote. Single Transferable Votes (STV) for local candidates produces proportionality without party lists at all. If Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) is used, the threshold of the vote can be set at 3-5% and exclude extreme parties.

Trudeau claimed that we should fear proportional representation because it would give Kellie Leitch ‘her own party’. But we need no hypotheticals. Kellie Leitch could become leader of the Conservative Party —so too could Kevin O’Leary or libertarian Maxime Bernier. They could lead a mainstream party.

Has Trudeau forgotten that Stephen Harper was an extreme political force—never supported by more than 25% of Canadians—yet prime minister for a decade and leading with a majority for four years of savage destruction of our environmental laws?

FPTP is dangerous. Proportional representation will keep extremism in check.

Trudeau: Proportional representation will be a threat to national unity.

Rebuttal: It is FPTP that gives disproportionate parliamentary power to regional splinter parties. FPTP allows regional parties to gain disproportionate power. The Bloc Quebecois running in only one province gained the seats to form Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition; Reform, outpaced the Progressive Conservative party in seats with only a fraction of the popular vote.

FPTP is a proven threat to national unity.

It is not too late to remind the prime minister of his promise. While he is grasping at straws, let’s throw him a life ring.

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post Dissecting the Prime Minister’s excuses for ditching his promise of fair voting appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The web of lies in the narrative spun in 16 minutes by President Donald Trump represents a chilling foreshadowing of his world view.

Of course, no one can know for sure if Donald Trump believes the things he says.  His performance the day after his inauguration in denying the evidence of everyone’s own eyes, satellite photos and universal media and even US government services’ reports on the crowd size for his inauguration suggests that he may fervently believe things that are obviously untrue. Or he may believe that he can, through force of will, convince his followers that they should deny reality. I am not sure which is the scarier prospect.

Whether he believes his “alternative facts” or not, Trump made some very dangerous claims in his Inaugural Address.

It is certainly true that many Americans are not as well off as they once were. Their society has been ravaged by budget cuts, the collapse of the housing markets and the sub-prime real estate criminality of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and others.  The life expectancy of the average American white male is declining. I learned this from Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in his address last fall at University of British Columbia. He related that white American men are dying younger due to a combination of alcohol, drugs and suicide.  And he linked it very clearly with the failed policies of the Reagan-Thatcher era.  The chasm between the 1% and the 99% has been growing. Tax cuts, deregulation, trade liberalization and privatization are a prescription for hollowing out the public sphere – creating a precarious climate of every man for himself. The policies of Neo-Liberalism are an empirical failure having eroded the middle class and the aspirations of a generation.

Trump presents the front of opposition to globalization. He blames trade deals, but not corporate rule. He blames other countries and by extension, their workers, but not the reorganization of the societies to put transnational corporations in charge.  Trump wants Americans to find imaginary culprits for the damage done to their country.  No wonder he does not want to accept Joseph Stiglitz’s view. He has appointed a gang of profiteers to his Cabinet.  His hand-picked billionaires club has in common virtually no experience in public service and bank accounts bloated by profits gained at the expense of the very people Trump claims to represent.  His Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, was a Goldman Sachs executive.  As the housing bubble burst, Mnuchin formed a new firm, OneWest, to buy the bad mortgages of the poor and middle class, and then made a fortune in foreclosures. In one case, his firm foreclosed on the home of a 90 year old woman due to an outstanding discrepancy of 30 cents.

Trump certainly would not want Americans looking for those really responsible.

Instead, his inaugural address put the blame on the excessive generosity of the elites in Washington.

Previous governments, he claimed “spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We have made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.”

In a blatant appeal to selfishness, Trump wants Americans to believe they are poorer because of development assistance to the poor of the world.  But the truth is US aid is far lower than that in other countries.  While the total dollar amount is not exceeded by any nation, the expression of dollars as a percentage of GDP is not keeping pace. Working for a United Nations commission, former Prime Minister Lester B Pearson set the target for development assistance at 0.7% of a country’s GDP. Sweden, the UK, Norway, and a few others have hit this target. Germany is over 0.4%. Canada is only at 0.28% of GDP. And the US? Its aid is only 0.19% of GDP.  Of the $32 billion the US gives other nations in aid, the largest recipient country, Israel, receives $3 billion.  But given everything Trump has said about increasing support for Netanyahu, even if it means abandoning the two-state solution, it is unlikely Trump will cut support for Israel. More likely, he will end aid to the poorest of the poor.  He has already signed an executive order cutting aid to any health facilities that offer abortion access.

Trump also blasted policies that he claimed had weakened the US military: “We’ve defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own.”

This bizarre claim flies in the face of the economic dominance of the military-industrial complex and the fact that the US spends more on its military than any country on earth. In fact 54% of the US discretionary budget in 2015 was spent on the military. Trump has made clear he does not like international partnerships, whether NATO or the United Nations.

His version of “America First” is not the usual and expected responsibility of any national leader to protect the interests of their nation. Trump’s is a dangerous vision designed to turn Americans against the rest of the world.

Trump’s “America First” doctrine is a declaration of selfishness and isolationism.

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise.

The post The Trump inaugural address and the lies it told appeared first on Elizabeth May.

When people were shocked Trump won the US election, I wasn’t as surprised as most.  And when people asked me why, I said it was the view out the train window.

When you fly across continents all you see is the sameness of the airports. The airports gleam. Travelling by air reveals nothing of the land in between.  Nothing touches the ground. But when you take the train, you see the life on the ground, as it is.

Last year I took Amtrak from Washington DC to Charleston, South Carolina where my grandfather was born.  The trip from Washington to Charleston is longer than it should be.  Driving is faster. Out the window, what you see is the decay of boarded up storefronts and train stations down at the heel.  You see a country with the wheels falling off.  Despite the occasional effort at local beautification, overwhelmingly there is a sense of quiet desperation.

None of the faces on that train, other than mine, were white. When you arrive, you are miles outside of town arriving in North Charleston. The station is surrounded by barbed wire – a miserable, unwelcoming landing point to one of the great architectural wonders of North America. In all of Canada and the U.S., for sheer beauty and history, Charleston is rivalled only by Quebec City.  In contrast, the train that arrives in Quebec City pulls into a small castle reflecting the beauty and heritage of the old city.

For my Christmas treat, I decided to take the train with my daughter and our new puppy from Vancouver to Toronto.  This was a selfish impulse.  It meant I had my daughter to myself for four whole days – December 23 leaving Vancouver to December 27^th arriving in Toronto.  I try to take the train cross-country at least once a year.

Across Canada, the view is never dispiriting. Forest, wetland bog, Rocky Mountains, small town or big city, the view does not reflect hopelessness. The seasons change the view, the weather and lighting make even a familiar view totally new. No matter where you are, in whatever season, Canada offers a hopeful view.

VIA Rail and the Government of Canada do not really understand what rail travel means to this country.  VIA Rail management thinks The Canadian, trans-continental Vancouver to Toronto, and The Ocean, Montreal to Halifax – the two lines that reach from coast to coast – are serving only tourists. David Emerson’s report on transportation argued they should compete without subsidy.  But the train is part of our public infrastructure. It allows families more economical travel.

Take the train and see for yourself. There is a very defined class system on board. Those in coach are sleeping in their chairs. The chairs (Day-Nighters) are designed to go back and allow a decent sleep, if you can manage amidst the sleeping strangers around you. Unlike airlines, VIA gives discounts for families. Small children travel free, while older youth are half price, and seniors have discounted travel as well.  The trains go to the small towns beyond the large urban centres. Few in coach were travelling the whole length of the trip.  They were on shorter hauls – Edmonton to Saskatoon, Winnipeg to Sioux Lookout.

My daughter and I were in the next class up.  We had a bedroom with upper and lower bunks. VIA now sells those rooms only as inclusive of all meals, and the meals are excellent. More expensive are the deluxe Prestige rooms, with double beds that fold down as Murphy beds would, larger windows, flat screen TVs and a private bath with shower.

If you have a dog on board, you walk through all sleepers, dining cars, dome cars, and coach to reach baggage, the closest car to the engine. With all the trips to the baggage car to care for the puppy, I got to know a lot of the travellers in coach.

That is how I met Nancy.  She was about my age, a grandmother on the last leg of her round-trip from her home in Minnedosa, a very small town in rural Manitoba, to Vancouver. She had left her car parked in Rivers Manitoba, hours from Winnipeg.  We had fallen far behind schedule due to the perpetual problem that the freight company owns the tracks and controls the traffic signals.  Passenger rail is always sent to the sidings to allow freight to pass. As a blizzard raged, and we realized the Rivers stop would be closer to 10:30 pm than the 5:30 pm schedule. It was Christmas Day.  If her car – parked in the bitter cold for two weeks – would not start, what garage would be open?  She would be 55 km from home. And she mentioned, the only hotel in Rivers had recently closed. What would she do?

Fortunately, I know Rivers, Manitoba (Our Green Party whistle stop tours included rallies at 5:30 am in Rivers, and the Mayor came out to welcome me as the only federal party leader to ever hold a rally there!)  I suggested she would be safe to go to any home and ask for help.  She agreed that was what she would do.  When I reached Toronto, I got an email from Nancy.  Her car battery had indeed died.  A passer-by spotted her distress and called the local police.   A young constable showed up and gave her car a boost, but recommended she not drive by herself through the terrible storm.  He led her to the police department to leave her car parked there and then he did the most amazing thing.  On Christmas night, he drove her home. All the way – 55 km there and 55 km back at a slow pace through a fierce blizzard – Const. Max Tschuschba drove Nancy home.

And that is something that I doubt would happen at a dark train station in rural America. Out the train windows of Amtrak, you see things falling apart. And while we should never forget that poverty and racism exist in Canada and that we are far from perfect, the stuff that knits us together is within reach. Out the train windows of VIA, you see community.

Originally published by Island Tides newspaper. See http://www.islandtides.com/ for more breaking West Coast news, views and enterprise. 

The post What trains show us appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The grading of a new government needs to start by setting out the context for assessment. However, setting the bar by the previous government is too low—a string of F’s is not a valuable tool. Canada is in new territory now and we need new tools.

Let’s measure the Trudeau administration’s performance against the Liberal platform promises and against the Speech from the Throne. The overriding priority of climate change is one that touches many portfolios, so it is a good criterion, too. As Bill McKibben has explained: ‘This is literally a math test, and it’s not being graded on a curve. It only has one correct answer. And if we don’t get it right, then all of us—along with our 10,000-year-old experiment in human civilization—will fail.’

So let’s do this for 13 key areas: democracy, climate action, environmental law, finance, immigration, health, foreign policy, trade, indigenous issues, justice, fisheries, agriculture and transportation.

Democracy: Incomplete

The major promise for electoral reform remains on the agenda, with the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform due to table its report on December 1, 2016. The hearings held by the ERRE across Canada attracted thousands of people as did the online submissions, primarily calling for proportional representation.

We have also seen appointments of Independent senators representing a high calibre of Canadians with strong backgrounds in public service. Impressive strides have been made in reducing the power of the PMO. Unprecedented transparency in letters of mandate also brings up this grade.

Climate: C

Full marks for leadership in Paris at COP21 and for prompt ratification of the Paris Agreement. The commitment to carbon pricing, despite some provincial resistance, brings up this mark. But the decision to maintain the same weak climate target brought in by the former Conservative government is very distressing. The Harper target (30% below 2005 levels by 2030) is incompatible with the Paris agreement’s goal of holding global average temperature to no more than 1.5ºC. The Liberal platform promised to end subsidies for fossil fuels, but budget 2015 has left them in place. As well, approving projects that will drive up greenhouse gas emissions, such as Petronas Pacific Northwest LNG, violates the first rule of holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

Environmental law: D

Removing the gutting of environmental law as forced through in the 2012 omnibus budget bills, C-38 and C-45, should have been accomplished as quickly as possible. But the post C-38 and C-45 versions of the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act are still the law of the land. The longer they remain in place, the graver the risk that they will remain in place.

In other areas, such as labour law and immigration, regressive changes by the previous government have been reversed. Rather than fix the omnibus budget bill’s damage three different ministers are approaching changes in different manners—and none of it urgently. (Caveat: it is true that the environmental community is split on how to proceed. Many are content with a long consultation process, despite the obvious risks).

Finance: C

The 2016 federal budget was a mixed bag. Commitments to indigenous peoples, housing, public transit, water works and waste water funding, relief on student debts and funds for marine protected areas partially met many Liberal promises. The budget fell far short on climate action. As noted by the PBO it did not deliver financial transparency. Unless corrected in the 2017 budget, the commitment to on-going LNG subsidies until end of 2024 is a campaign promise broken. The good news from the fall update is that budget 2017 will have substantially enhanced investments in GHG-cutting infrastructure. The commitments to legislate independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, open the Board of Internal Economy to daylight, and greater independence for the Chief Statistician of Canada are very welcome.

Immigration: B

Minister McCallum has moved to repair damage done to legislation, as well as to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada. It has been remarkable to watch as thousands of Canadians opened their hearts (and their wallets) to help, but many more refugees await help. While much more needs to be done to repair the damage of the last 10 years to our immigration and refugee law, the changes to C24—ensuring one class of citizenship—deserves strong support.

Health: B

Minister Philpott has had a series of very tough files. Given that the Green Party could not support C-14 as it did not meet the tests of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case, the mark is lowered. The May 2016 national conference on Lyme disease, mandated by my private members bill, was a high water mark in public health attention to the issue, but the national strategy is still incomplete. The mandate letter calls for bulk buying of pharmaceutical drugs, to bring down the price. Tough issues remain: the renegotiation of the health accord and legalization of marijuana.

Foreign Policy: C

A surprisingly weak start for the new Liberal government was the approval of the sale of armoured jeeps to a repressive regime of Saudi Arabia. Global Affairs minister Stephane Dion made a welcome announcement in June that Canada would become state party to the UN Arms Control Treaty, but rejected calls to tighten our export screen to reject arms sales to countries with dismal human rights records. Saudi Arabia, China and Algeria are among the top ten customers for Canadian arms sales. In a pattern of two steps forward and one step back, Minister Dion improved the record in committing that Canada sign on to the Optional Protocol against Torture, but disappointed the nuclear disarmament community in voting with the nuclear weapons states in the UN against a special round of negotiations in 2017 to ban nuclear weapons.

Trade: C

The triumphalism in signing the CETA is deeply disturbing. Canadians have never been granted a full debate about any of the deals that enhance corporate power at the expense of domestic environmental and health regulations. All the investor-state agreements need to be reviewed and assessed before entering new ones. Chapter 11 of NAFTA has cost us millions and reduced environmental protections. As it is secret, we have no idea how much the Canada-China FIPA may have already impacted our laws. CETA and TPP increase the number of countries from which foreign corporations will have a right to bring monetary claims in arbitrations–with varying degrees of transparency.

All deals increasing regimes for corporate rule and the reduction of national sovereignty should be opposed. Credit to the new minister for pursuing Canada’s appeal against the anti-democratic NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration decision, in support of Bilcon, a US corporation.

Justice for Indigenous Peoples – First Nations, Metis and Inuit: F

$8.4 billion in spending commitments met with approval by AFN Chief Perry Belgarde, but much more needs to be done. As the vote in the house on the NDP motion to meet the needs of First Nations children demonstrated, there has been inadequate attention to funding for children’s services and not enough for suicide prevention.

But more significant than money is the commitment to truth, justice and reconciliation based on a nation-to-nation relationship. The approval of permits by this government for Site C violates fundamental treaty rights. It is a betrayal of Liberal campaign promises.

Justice: C

Welcomed decisions to drop appeals launched by previous governments, but more need to be dropped. The failure of the government to assess treaty rights impacted by granting permits for Site C dams is very worrying. The commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is welcome, but the growing inconsistency between government actions–such as on Site C and Pacific Northwest LNG—and that commitment is worrying.

Fisheries: D

The Fisheries Act remains broken without restoration of the provisions to protect fish habitat. The promise to implement the Cohen Commission recommendations for controls on aquaculture remains unfulfilled. The approval of the Petronas LNG project on Lelu Island off Prince Rupert threatens the survival of BC’s second largest salmon run, the Skeena salmon.

Agriculture: C

There is virtually nothing in the platform or the SFT on agriculture. Here’s hoping the Trudeau administration decides to take up the issue of helping family farmers, local agriculture and food security.

Transportation: D

We urgently need proper regulation and setbacks for LNG tankers and proposed transit routes before projects are approved. The LNG projects in Squamish, BC, and on Lelu Island, BC, should never be approved without a clear regulatory framework for set-back zones for LNG tankers. We need enhanced rail safety regulations and restoration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We need to support cross-country VIA Rail passenger service.

The post Grading the government appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I do not use the word ‘corrupt’ lightly. If not for a fairly random connection, I would merely be heart-broken at the environmental and climate atrocity wrapped up in the approval of Pacific NorthWest LNG. Instead, I am angry and deeply concerned that the Cabinet ministers who made the decision were denied key scientific evidence by the very civil servants who are mandated to provide them with the facts.

The random event was the Saanich Inlet Round Table on May 26, 2016. The immediate local issue is, of course, the proposed Steelhead floating LNG facility for Saanich Inlet. Organizers decided a local scientist who had done extensive work for the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation on the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG would be of interest. Dr McLaren’s presentation, ‘Lessons to be learnt from the Petronas Affair—Prince Rupert’, had no scientific parallels for us. The ecological and scientific issues are unique to Lelu Island. But the political lessons are chilling.

What Dr McLaren shared made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I have worked for the last forty years with various branches of government and regulators. It is not that they were always perfect. DFO’s blind stupidity cost us one of the world’s most abundant fisheries, the North Atlantic cod, to name one example. But overall, I have come to expect professionalism and a dispassionate willingness to examine the evidence.

That is what Patrick McLaren expected. Back in the 1970s and ’80s he had worked as a government scientist with the Canadian Geological Survey. He specialized in coastal geology, left Canada for a while as a visiting scholar at Cambridge, and returned with his own consulting firm. He was the first scientist to scuba dive under the North Pole to study the ice. In other words, he’s no slouch when it comes to science. So when he presented his findings to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources Canada, he thought they would be interested. Instead, they were hostile. His findings were inconvenient. They did not accord with the numerical modelling by Petronas that said everything would be fine.

Lelu Island in Prince Rupert Sound is the now approved site for a massive LNG development. In addition to the acknowledged increase in GHG and threat to local porpoises, a huge issue is whether the project will endanger the second largest salmon run in BC—the Skeena salmon fishery. The Skeena salmon depend on the rich eelgrass habitat found almost exclusively on a huge extent of sand called Flora Bank.

Up until Dr McLaren was hired by the Lax Kw’alaams to check out the sediments and how they were transported, everyone assumed that all the sediments came from the Skeena River. Instead, Dr McLaren found that, using his technique known as Sediment Trend Analysis (STA), the sands of Flora Bank were not from the Skeena at all—nor from anywhere else one can find on the British Columbian coast.

In fact, they were from a glacial dump of sediments occurring between 15,000 to 8,000 years ago. The sands of Flora Bank are 8,000 years old. Dr McLaren describes them as ‘ancient, relict sands’.

So the question for science is not ‘will building a giant terminal, pounding 500 pilings, more than a metre each in diameter, into the sand banks hurt the eel grass?’ The question is ‘what is keeping this unique geological feature in place?’

And that raises other troubling questions. If the waves and currents hold the sands in place, what impact will the pilings and huge LNG tankers parked along more than a quarter of Flora Bank’s perimeter have on the ancient formation? Dr McLaren predicts that they will reduce the energy of the processes impinging the bank enabling the sand to ‘escape’ to the surrounding deep water. The eel grass and its fish habitat will be removed with the sand, effectively destroying Flora Bank.

Not only Petronas, but CEAA, DFO and NRCan did not like this prediction. At first they dismissed Dr McLaren’s work. Then he made it stickier for them by getting the research published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Journal of Coastal Research ‘The environmental implications of sediment transport in the waters of Prince Rupert, BC, Canada: A comparison between kinematic and dynamic approaches.’)

Once published, CEAA made Petronas re-do their numeric model to at least acknowledge the troublesome prediction made from the STA. Petronas produced new versions until CEAA accepted their incredible claim that the wave action and currents along Flora Bank would not be sufficient to impact the sands and that the STA actually supported the findings of their numeric model. Incredible because in order to produce that result, Petronas had to suppress their own findings that currents were actually up to three times more intense than their model had predicted. And NRCan and DFO and CEAA all knew that the information was being suppressed.

In questioning Petronas about their model, Dr McLaren was interrupted and told to stop by CEAA officials. He felt it was because the Petronas modellers were becoming uncomfortable. As he recalled, ‘It was the most important point in that meeting to get straight. And I was told to ‘move on,’ and stop asking about numbers that made no sense. It made me believe the modellers had not looked at their own numbers.’

His conclusions are personal and powerful:

‘If you cannot explain the present, and the Petronas model certainly cannot, why would you use it to predict the future?

‘We know that this model is not science. You cannot use a model to prove a preconceived notion: that building on Flora Bank will not hurt the salmon. That’s not science. And we know that the claim that STA supports the numerical model is just simply not true.

‘The currents mean everything. The way Petronas presented the lie was to show that the currents on Flora Bank are too small to move the sediments… but they themselves (Petronas) had taken current data three times higher than what they used and they kept that secret with the collusion of CEEA, NRCan and DFO.

‘And we know the model doesn’t work. My conclusion is that the science and the model are fraudulent.’

He presented that conclusion, including using the word ‘fraudulent’ at a meeting with First Nations and representatives from the three federal agencies. No one challenged him. No one said a word.

Collusion. Fraudulent, Corrupt. These are not words I associate with the federal approvals process. We need to be raising hell before similar ‘science’ is used to approve Kinder Morgan.

This article was written with the assistance of Patrick McLaren, PhD, PGeo, President of SedTrend Analysis Limited in Brentwood Bay.

The post 8,000 year old ancient relic sand under Petronas pilings appeared first on Elizabeth May.