Ideally, Canadians would have an opportunity to discuss what energy decisions are most in our national interest: to export bitumen crude as fast as possible? To refine the crude in Canada creating tens of thousands of jobs here? To continue to allow Eastern Canada to be dependent on Nigeria, Angola, and Venezuela for oil supplies, or to improve the pipeline infrastructure heading east from Alberta to serve the rest of Canada?

We are not going to have that opportunity. With the 2012 budget, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have made it clear (as if it were not abundantly clear already) that discussion about Canada’s energy policy will be viewed by them as tantamount to a direct attack on the national interest. To point out that ignoring the climate crisis actually hurts our economy with costs by 2020 of over $5-billion per year (conservatively), as the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (NRTEE) did, is sufficient cause for execution. Given the small cost of the NRTEE, its origins in the Mulroney era, and its mandate to bring industry leaders together with labour, environmental groups and others to find multi-stakeholder consensus, the decision to kill it was a shock. Environment Minister Peter Kent’s defence of the decision (obviously not his decision) that we no longer need such an advisory body because we have the internet is a joke.

For an environmental group to organize to protect the environment of British Columbia is to become targeted for “sanctions” under the Canada Revenue Agency, with $8-million set aside for going after environmental groups. As The Globe and Mail pointed out “witch hunts do not come cheap.”

The CRA has been conducting a steady campaign of harassment against environmental charities for years. Audits have been frequent for years, with the desired chilling effect on public criticisms of government policy. Does Mr. Harper really need to direct $8-million more to equip CRA for even greater levels of harassment?

The decisions have all been made. The problem is that in asserting that oil supertankers can safely traverse British Columbia’s northern coastal waters, the Prime Minister is ignoring quite substantial evidence.

Transport Canada shocked experts through a facile conclusion delivered to the Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge supertanker scheme. No doubt at the direction of their political masters, Transport Canada told the panel it saw no “regulatory difficulties” with the proposal. The document tabled to the review process in defence of this pre-ordained conclusion is a shoddy piece of work. There is no reference to the 1972 moratorium on oil tankers, respected by every federal and British Columbia government since then. The conclusion the route is safe is based on the width and depth of channels and whether supertankers can actually fit through them. The only discussion of weather and wave and storms is to suggest that (over time) a system of weather warnings will be set up to warn tankers to stay in port if it’s stormy. How the tankers are to handle the extreme conditions known to come out of nowhere in the area is simply not discussed.

In that it has ignored Environment Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual which states that the Hecate Strait (through which the supertankers must pass) is “the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world.”

Author John Vaillant in his classic, The Golden Spruce, described the Hecate Strait as “a malevolent weather factory: on a regular basis its unique combination of wind, tide, shoals, and shallows produces a kind of destructive synergy that has few parallels elsewhere in nature.” He goes on to describe how “blind rollers”enormous waves that come out of nowherecan expose the sea floor of Hecate Strait. The submission to the review process never even mentions the Hecate Strait.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans review of the threat to humpback whales in 2005 named the proposed tanker traffic to Kitimat as a threat to whale recovery. Humpback whales are listed as a species at risk in the threatened category. Scientists actually think the fin whales may be even more at risk of tanker collisions. The Transport Canada document suggests they will have whale spotters to warn a captain to avoid a whale. Really? Whale spotters can see whales in fog? At night? In a gale? No wonder that even in the report to the review panel contains concerns from DFO and recommends that Enbridge continue to work on this problem.

Lastly, Transport Canada’s conclusions are based on a long list of safety features, including using two tug boats to assist in supertanker navigation, which are voluntary. Enbridge will not own or control the tankers, but asserts its approach to tanker approval will ensure safety of the tankers it does not control.

Some people may buy this bland reassurance. It is a lot easier if you only care about selling bitumen crude to China, and a lot harder if you care about the existing tens of thousands of B.C. jobs dependent on a healthy coastal ecosystem. In fact, if you care about keeping B.C.’s coast oil-free, it is impossible.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Why oil supertankers have no place on B.C. coastline appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“We have seen the same problem in BC with the halibut fishery and it has led to fishers having no access to quota and quota being held by buyers rather than fishers.  We should learn from this lesson and do better on the Atlantic coast,” said Green Leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands Elizabeth May. “Modernizing policy should not equate to giving big corporations free access.  We should be concerned about protecting local jobs and local economies.”

“We are also calling on the Minister to prevent lobster licences within lobster fishing districts being sold to people or companies that not resident in those districts.  This is an issue on Grand Manan Island at the moment,” said Harvey.

Fisheries groups are also concerned that the government may be considering abandoning the owner-operator policy which requires the fishing licence-holder to catch the fish.

“Policies which prevent large corporations from taking over the inshore and mid-shore fisheries are for the good of our coastal communities,” said May.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is collecting responses to a January discussion paper until March 14th.  Groups are concerned that the document is missing the fleet separation and owner-operator policies.

“The Minister could allay a lot of fears if he would simply confirm that these policies will be maintained,” said May.

The post Fleet Separation Policy Needed to Protect Inshore Fisheries appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On paper this looks like we should have energy security, but the oil is not distributed evenly.  Oil from Hibernia on the East Coast is exported, as is Athabasca bitumen crude.  Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces rely on oil from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia.  In fact, 100% of the oil used in Quebec and the four Atlantic Provinces is imported.

In hearings before the House Natural Resources Committee, I heard executives from the oil industry say that if there was a disruption of supply to get oil to Eastern Canada, they could send tankers down through the Panama Canal to get to Eastern Canada. The U.S. also has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure security of supply.  Does anyone find it odd that Canada does not?  I think we should have a plan to ensure energy security for Canada.  To do so, we would need to reverse some existing pipeline flows and invest in upgrading some of the existing pipeline infrastructure.

The post Is Canada an Energy Superpower? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The irony is that if Canada continues to ship out bitumen crude as fast as humanly possible, it is Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that must continue to depend on imports from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. Fifty-five per cent of the oil used in Canada is imported. Meanwhile, bitumen crude is shipped to other countries for processing.

Every barrel of crude shipped out of Canada ships out jobs with it. The distortions from the Conservatives on the question of oilsands expansion, raw product export and risky tanker traffic keep trying to limit discussion to environment versus economy. The truth is that it is not in Canada’s interests — in terms of energy security, the environment or the economy — to follow the Harper agenda.

Elizabeth May
MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader, Green Party of Canada

View the full original article >>

The post Harper agenda not good for country appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Old Harry should have a wide ranging environmental impact assessment including economic, social and environmental impacts and allowing for intervenors including non-profits, fishers, the tourism industry and First Nations.  We are extremely disappointed that Minister Kent will do nothing beyond a minimal screening of the project; it is completely inadequate.  Our government is failing the people of Canada by not conducting a thorough review of this proposed project,” said May.

Kent indicated in his letter that the broader issue of oil and gas development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence will be examined through an update of the strategic environmental assessment of the Western Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore area.  The Green Party is calling for this strategic review to be amended into an immediate convening of a Joint Federal-Provincial Review with a role for each of the five provinces involved and full public engagement with funding for First Nations, fishers, tourism organizations and environmental groups, with access to funding for independent science for intervenor groups.

“Kent did not indicate any details of how this process will unfold,” said May. “We must not risk a major oil spill in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; it would be catastrophic.  All development including Old Harry should be put on hold until the broader environmental assessment has been conducted.”

As MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, May asked a question on June 16th in the House of Commons about oil and gas development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, pointing out to Environment Minister Peter Kent that this is “a most biologically productive region with over 2,000 marine species including endangered blue whales. It is now threatened by a deep water oil well. This is a region that touches five provinces.”  She asked if Kent would agree to a Joint Panel, the highest level of assessment under CEAA.  He confirmed that he had received a request from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to refer the project to a review and promised to consider the facts in his decision.

“The fact is that the Old Harry project is not a good thing for Atlantic Canada,” said Green Fisheries Critic Janice Harvey. “It is putting in jeopardy an incredibly productive and sensitive marine region with important spawning, nursery and migratory areas for lobster, herring, snow crab, mackerel, tuna, ground fish, whales and dolphins. Fragile Atlantic salmon, cod and wolfish, fin whale and humpback whale are listed of special concern. Right whale, piping plover, leatherback turtle and harlequin duck are endangered. In light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, how can the Canadian government allow this project to be fast-tracked without proper consideration?”

“The development of oil and gas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is opposed by First Nations in the region as a short-sighted, potentially disastrous project that ignores all that we know about the sensitivity of the region,” said Lorraine Rekmans, Green Aboriginal Affairs Critic.

The post Greens Slam Lack of Assessment on Old Harry appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As the oil gushes from 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, will those who were so reckless have the decency to experience shame? Don’t hold your breath.

Drilling enthusiasm was not confined to the US Republicans. Here at home, the drillers have been pushing hard for exemptions and new drilling in Atlantic Canada’s off-limits fishing grounds in Georges’ Bank, the coast of British Columbia and the increasingly ice-free Beaufort Sea. The irony, entirely lost on the drillers, is that what makes drilling possible is the Arctic ice’s dangerous disappearance, due to fossil-fuel burning around the world.

The Harper government’s 2010 Speech from the Throne and Budget Speech spoke of the great wealth and prosperity that awaits from Canada’s oil and gas resources. Opening up the fragile Arctic environment to oil and gas, expanding the tar sands export opportunities to Asia with pipelines through British Columbia and oil tankers on our coast are all part of the vision of Canada as ‘energy super- power.’ All this development simply awaited the recent government moves to reduce the barriers to development by ‘modernizing the regulatory system.’ Energy projects were virtually exempted from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

And now, along comes the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Even now, some in the oil patch look for silver linings. Only the National Post could dream up this frontpage headline: ‘Gulf’s pain oil sands’ gain, agree experts.’ (May 5, 2010.)

What do we learn from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? In many ways, it is too soon to tell. As I write this on May 5, the situation is in flux. The weather has temporarily improved. Heroic efforts of local fishermen to protect their livelihoods are underway, to lay booms and curtains that may or may not work. Efforts to stop the flow of oil may or may not succeed, and it may take up to three months to arrest it. The head of BP admitted, in the May 5 New York Times, that the daily flow might not be 5,000 barrels of oil, but could reach ten times as much.

One lesson is the sad fate of an oil company that tried, briefly, to divest itself and become an energy company. Former BP CEO, Lord John Brown, actually meant it when he moved to ‘Beyond Petroleum.’ Sadly, he was undermined by his board. His replacement, Tony Hayward, knew where his bread was buttered. BP dropped its green sheen and now lives with a destroyed reputation.

Still, a few lessons are clear. Technology cannot be perfected. Off-shore oil imposes huge risks. Governor Schwarzenegger has announced that plans to open up California’s coasts are cancelled, stating: ‘The money is simply not worth the risk.’

BP, among other oil giants, has insisted catastrophic failures in the off-shore do not justify precautionary planning. BP’s Deepwater Horizon well, the one currently emitting oil into the Gulf, lobbied for, and received on April 9, 2009, an exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act. Termed a ‘categorical exclusion’ it was granted by the Minerals Management Service. Eleven days before the disaster at Deepwater Horizon, BP was pushing for more exemptions. Rather than think through ‘worst case’ scenarios, the US and global industry have treated out-of-control blow- outs off-shore as too unlikely to merit preventative measures—and too far off-shore to threaten coastal damage. (As though dumping oil into the open waters outside territorial limits has no consequence worth consideration.) Both assumptions are now proven wrong.

But we always knew they were wrong. There have been blow-outs in off-shore wells in Nova Scotia, one of which, the Uniake G-72, took nine days to be brought under control. The Santa Barbara California disaster in 1969, due to a Union Oil well blow-out in only 190 feet of water, leaked for 100 days. Then there are the routine spills. It has been estimated that 75% of all the oil spillage along all US coasts was from the Gulf of Mexico rigs, in non-accident conditions. And then there’s the tanker traffic: the 1970 Arrow spill in Nova Scotia (9,000 tonnes), the 1989 Exxon Valdez (38,800 tonnes), the 1996 UK Sea Empress (72,000 tonnes), and on and on.

This litany of despoiled ocean and coast-line share two features: hubris and short memories. We are always told the technology is ‘state of the art.’ Regulations are new and improved. The old days are just that, dead and gone. And we forget.

‘I’m of the opinion that boosterism breeds complacency and complacency breeds disaster,’ said Representative Edward J Markey (D-Mass). ‘That, in my opinion, is what happened.’

In recent days, the Conservative Government, through both the Prime Minister and the Environment minister, has been practicing its own boosterism, proclaiming that we have the toughest regulations in the world. Nonsense. The recently revised regulations are of a new type. They move away from ‘prescriptive regulations’ to a ‘goal- oriented approach.’ The difference is that the companies are able to propose what they want to do to reach a goal of, for instance, environmental protection, without having the kind of technology dictated by regulation.

As explained in the regulations for oil and gas in the Canada Gazette: ‘Modernizing the Regulations improves the existing regulatory framework to support the frontier and offshore oil and gas industry’s continued growth and contribution to Canada’s economy and competitiveness while maintaining the highest standards for safety, environmental protection and management of resources.’

The goal of the regulatory change was to increase development and remove regulation, just as the goal of exempting energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Act was to speed up approvals.

The overall lesson from all of this is clear; we must ensure there is no offshore drilling in Canada’s remote and fragile Arctic environment. No drilling along BC’s coast. And no oil tanker traffic along BC’s coast. The short-term rewards go to those who don’t live here. Any accident devastates our fishery, our tourism, our way of life and the existence of a complex web of life.

Elizabeth May, O.C. is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and writes this missive from Farley Mowat’s desk in Port Hope, Ontario.

The post ‘Spill! Baby, Spill!’ appeared first on Elizabeth May.