I couldn’t agree more with Mayor Fortin that citizens of southern Vancouver Island must have a say, and a definitive say, about the proposal to dramatically increase bitumen-loaded tankers through our waters. I am also an intervenor in the Kinder-Morgan National Energy Board hearing process. By reducing the process to largely a paper exercise, by eliminating the opportunity for oral cross-examination, the weakness of Kinder Morgan’s evidence may escape public exposure.

I first appeared before the National Energy Board as counsel in 1980. It is a quasi-judicial body and cross-examination is an essential element of the process. In fact, only under Harper has the NEB started denying the right of cross-examination. The fact that Stephen Harper wants the NEB to report quickly is not sufficient justification for eliminating the rights of intervenors. I have retained respected lawyer Clayton Ruby to represent me to challenge the process if cross-examination is not allowed.

I have worked my way through the 15,000 pages of Kinder Morgan’s application. I believe its length is intended to impress and intimidate. It is long because it is duplicative and contains masses of irrelevant and bogus material. I have found some amazing bloopers. They claim that dilbit (the mixture of bitumen and toxic condensate they are shipping) will behave just like crude in the marine environment. We know crude is a disaster when spilled, but we know from the Enbridge Kalamazoo River spill that dilbit is worse and impossible to clean up. In an appendix, I found the technical report setting out KM’s evidence. It was a test conducted in Alberta over a thirteen day period. Contractors for Kinder Morgan put salt water in tanks and then dumped in dilbit. Then they stirred and took other action they claimed approximated wind and wave action in the natural environment. The tanks held 26.5 m3 (7,000) gallons. Additional tests were done in a 1m x1m x 1m fish tank and in plastic five gallon pails. The five gallon pail and fish tank research went awry, even according to the researchers:

“Errors occurred in the fish tank, because the spill was installed in a manner that resulted in a large amount of dispersion at the outset, due to air ingestion, and the resulting slick was larger than the ruler and developed an asymmetric form.”

In other words, this so-called research was conducted by a team over 13 days that didn’t have a ruler the right size to measure a spill in a five gallon bucket. That is not the only example of shoddy work in the KM application. Another intervenor spotted that the model KM used to forcast oil spill dispersion, which KM claimed in the report was a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved method, was a draft EPA publication which had failed at peer review. KM had emoved the word “draft” from its submission. This is tantamount to fraud.

We must not allow the NEB process to be a paper exercise. We need to be in the room with the right to cross-examine Kinder Morgan.

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader
Green Party of Canada

Originally printed in the Victoria Times-Colonist.

The post Letter to the Editor: Give Capital Region a Say on Pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.

With all respect to the hon. parliamentary secretary, I suggest to him that his three tiers are not enough. We have to have airport security as a priority and border security as a priority.

When the unions that represent border service agents say they think smugglers will get the upper hand, Canadians should be worried.

When the RCMP officers are pulled from our airports for austerity reasons, I think we should all be concerned. It is a small amount of prudence for a large amount of benefit.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP as the police of jurisdiction will continue a police presence at the Kelowna and Victoria airports with routine patrols and in response to 911 emergency calls for service. I assure the member that the RCMP is well equipped, well trained and well positioned to continue to carry out this essential function. We will support our national police force in so doing.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As well, the RCMP presence was withdrawn from Kelowna. Although Kelowna is in quite a spectacularly beautiful part of Canada, in the Okanagan, it happens to be, according to security experts with whom I have consulted, something of a thoroughfare for the smuggling of drugs and weapons. It is in an area where there are significant markets in northern Alberta and, without the RCMP detachment at the Kelowna airport, there is a concern that there will be an increase in drug dealing and other offences.

This comes at the same time as significant cutbacks in border security agents. According to the union representing the border guards, the Canada Border Services Agency has had cuts of up to 1,000 people. A lot of us saw the news coverage of the loss of the canine division, which was very efficient, effective and accurate at detecting the presence of illicit drugs and narcotics and so forth at borders. We have lost the canine division, we have lost the workforce of Canada Border Services agents who worked with that canine force, and we are losing security along the Canada–U.S. border at the same time that these cutbacks at the RCMP have lost us protection in our airports.

I have to say that I find this rather baffling, coming from an administration that has fashioned itself as being tough on crime and as being one that wants to protect Canada and Canadians from the threats of violent crime and the threats of illegal and illicit activity. This is in fact not just affecting particularly the Canada Border Services agents, not just affecting so-called backroom arrangements, agents and operations, but actually will affect the front-line operations of border security agents in such a way that the president of the union feels that smugglers will get the upper hand.

It really would be appropriate for the federal government to revisit these ill-advised cuts and to restore and replace the presence of RCMP officers in the class 2 airports, such as in Victoria and in Kelowna, and at the same time to revisit the cutting of border security agents. These are ill-conceived cuts that will cause far more damage through the loss of security than they can possibly gain in austerity.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for providing me with the opportunity to respond to some of her concerns. Like other police services across Canada, the RCMP in British Columbia provides on-site policing at airports. Airport security in Canada is designated into three tiers across the country.

Tier 1 includes larger airports with policing detachments such as Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and similar other larger centres. The policing detachment in each tier 1 airport is provided by the police of the jurisdiction in that municipality where the airport is located.

Tier 2 airports are located in medium-sized municipalities that include cities like Kelowna or Victoria.

Tier 3 airports are located in small communities across Canada and do not have dedicated police presence as part of their security measures.

Security assessment of all airports is a continuous effort of Transport Canada.

The funding for airport security measures is paid directly by Transport Canada to the airport authorities and the municipality.

The RCMP provision of policing services under contract is conducted through co-operation with the municipality and the chief operating officer in each airport.

Total security operations for each airport include various measures, for example, perimeter fencing, employee security passes and controlled access zones. Budget allocations by Transport Canada are based on the assessment to determine the risks and need for security at each airport.

In 2012, Transport Canada estimated that existing security measures as a whole at tier 2 airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, other than dedicated police officers and detachments, were sufficient to ensure public safety at these airports.

We have confidence in Transport Canada’s assessment that the overall security package at Canadian airports, including Kelowna and Victoria, provide maximum security and safety measures for all Canadians. Let me assure the House that the policing presence at Kelowna and Victoria airports is ongoing through routine patrols and by responding to all emergency 911 calls for service.

With that being said, I thank the member for her query and I now anticipate her follow-up.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Airport Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I wonder if my hon. friend has any comments on his testimony.

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right.

The RCMP and the people of British Columbia, because we have the largest RCMP force, have been asking for an independent body to investigate the RCMP when they are involved in incidents. We have had a number of high-profile incidents where the call is loud and clear from the public that we need an independent body to investigate the RCMP.

The government had an opportunity to address these issues, which are of concern in our communities. Again, the Conservatives failed to do that.

The post Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act (Bill C-42) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

May, who has an excellent attendance record in the House of Commons, feels that this sit-in is too important to miss. “I greatly value the work I am able to do in the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents and other Canadians, but there are times when more direct, non-parliamentary action is needed – and this is certainly one of them,” said May.

As a BC MP, she wants to show her support for the majority of British Columbians – whether in small communities, First Nations, or urban centres – who oppose the threats posed by treacherous pipelines through their pristine forests and across their streams and by risky bitumen-filled supertankers along their wild coastline.

WHERE: In front of the British Columbia Legislature, Victoria, BC
WHEN: 11 am Pacific Time, on Monday, October 22

 May will be attending from 11 am to 1 pm.

The post May to Take Part in Defend Our Coast Sit-In appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The geoengineering technique of “ocean fertilization” creates an artificial bloom of plankton in the ocean in the hope it will absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed.

“This kind of experiment is very, very risky business. Scientists have warned us it can destroy oceanic ecosystems, create toxic tides, and aggravate ocean acidification and global warming. The long-term absorption of carbon dioxide in water is also contested. The bottom line is that ocean fertilization has a high potential of catastrophic effects and a low potential of success. It is a road we should not take at any cost,” said Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada Leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“The fact that Federal officials may have known about this and let it to happen is disturbing. Have they allowed a Californian rogue investor to play with fire at the expense of Canada’s environment? I never thought I’d see something like this happen in my country,” added May.

News of the geoengineering experiment in BC surfaces as the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity is held in India. “It raises a concern that Canada’s blocking of international rules around such geoengineering experiments at the Biodiversity Convention meetings is tied to turning a blind eye to this unprecedented blunder,” concluded the Green Leader.

The post The Feds May Have Known of Geoengineering Experiment in BC appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would ask that he listen closely, because what I am going to say is important. My question in June and my question today relate to respect for the will of British Columbians. Let me speak to the will of British Columbians.

It is the will of British Columbians not to have supertankers on our coastline. That is why since 1972 there has been a moratorium. Although the port of Vancouver was grandfathered at the time, the coastline of British Columbia, and Hecate Strait in particular, which according to Environment Canada is the fourth most hazardous body of water on Earth, is not traversed by supertankers carrying oil because we have had a moratorium since 1972.

That moratorium is the will of British Columbians, and we will, as a province and as a people, continue to insist that the Prime Minister of this country respect the British Columbia firewall.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the member wants to build a firewall around British Columbia, particularly on the issue of international shipping.

There is not an expert in the world on regulatory matters that would believe it in the interest of Canada to go to province by province regulations for shipping. We would have five or six different regimes just entering the St. Lawrence into the Great Lakes, and that would not be practical.

The reality is that we have had tankers going in and out of the British Columbia west coast since the 1930s, a total of 82 tankers last year, 1,302 tankers in the last 5 years, and 200 oil and chemical tankers safely visited the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat.

We have strong regulations, aerial surveillance, onboard inspections. For 20 years, as a result of these strong regulatory actions and the co-operation of industry, we have not had a single, solitary major oil spill in Canadian waters. That is a success story we should celebrate, not something we should tear down.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Transport appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The question that leads tonight’s adjournment proceedings was a question I put in June, before the House rose for the summer. Unfortunately, the response came from a minister whose areas of responsibility do not actually fall within the parameters of the question I asked. It means that this time the representative for the Minister of Transport is here. However, my question did not specifically relate to transport. It was a tangential issue.

My question was one of constitutional authorities. In particular, I put it to the Prime Minister that since he was well known in opposition as an individual who believed that the provinces should exert their jurisdictional authorities to the maximum to press back against heavy-handed federal intrusion into their areas of authority, I wondered if he had now changed his mind. Those of us in British Columbia felt very clearly that the Prime Minister was pushing a particular project on the people of British Columbia whether we liked it or not.

Just to make it clear to all present today, to refresh their memories, the question I put was the following:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister for many years expressed concern as an Albertan about the heavy-handed intrusion of federal policy on the will of Albertans.

Right now, British Columbians oppose supertankers on the coastline, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities opposes supertankers and today’s polls show by a margin of three to one that British Columbians do not want oil tankers on their coastline. Will the Prime Minister run roughshod over the will of British Columbians for his pet project?

In that brief question I was alluding to something that is famously known as the firewall letter. This was back in January 2001, when our current Prime Minister was not serving in the House but had left a position as MP to become the executive director of the National Citizens Coalition. In that capacity, he co-signed a letter with University of Alberta professor Tom Flanagan; with Ted Morton, who was described in the letter as Alberta senator-elect; with the head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; and with other Albertans, particularly Ken Boessenkool, who is now an advisor to Christy Clark.

The irony is not lost on British Columbians. This famous letter was designed to do the following. The current Prime Minister wrote in 2001 about what could be done to extend provincial powers to “limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction”.

Perhaps I will have better luck tonight. I will put my question again.

Has the current Prime Minister lost track of his previous concerns that provincial rights, privileges and powers, and particularly the will of the people of a province, should be respected and that in fact he should be guided on the matter of the Enbridge proposal and the supertankers, which British Columbians do not want, by the will of the people of British Columbia and not his own preference for expansion of bitumen production?

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing the constitutional and jurisdictional questions that the member posed. I would point out the very obvious, that even the most strong believer in the principle of subsidiarity would accept that the federal government is responsible for regulating shipping and the associated industries. That is because ships cross borders. It is an international business and it would be impossible for it to be adequately regulated on a province-by-province basis.

The member mentioned oil tankers and the safety-related issues around them. The reality is that oil tankers have been moving safely into west coast waters since the 1930s. This, contrary to the member’s remarks, is nothing new. In fact, a total of 82 oil tankers arrived at Port Metro Vancouver in 2011. During the last five years there were 1,302 tankers that arrived at that same port. During that time period, nearly 200 oil and chemical tankers safely visited the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat. They follow international and Canadian requirements, including double hulling of ships, mandatory pilotage, regular inspections, and aerial surveillance. With double hull, the bottom and sides of the vessel have two complete layers of water-tight hull surface. Tankers that are not double hull are being gradually phased out. For large crude oil tankers, like the Exxon Valdez was, the phase-out date for single hull vessels was 2010, which means that all large crude oil tankers operating in our waters today are double hull.

In compulsory pilotage areas, the pilotage authorities require tanker operators to take on board a marine pilot with knowledge before entering a harbour or busy waterway. The department ship inspectors are on board and they inspect foreign vessels, including oil tankers, entering Canadian ports to ensure they comply with all of our rules. In 2011, there were 1,100 inspections carried out across Canada, 147 of them on oil tankers.

We also have the eye in the sky which watches tankers as they approach our shores. Transport Canada performs aerial surveillance over Canadian waters to detect pollution from ships. In 2010-11, crews observed more than 12,000 vessels, nearly one-third of which were over west coast waters. It is an effective prevention tool because potential polluters know that Canada is watching and we have the power to prosecute.

What I am about to say is very important, so I ask that the member listen carefully. The good news is that over the last 20 years there has not been a single major oil spill in Canadian waters. We will work to ensure that the next 20 years are as successful as the last.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Transport appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada, Jane Sterk, Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and Adriane Carr, Vancouver City Councillor with the Green Party of Vancouver and Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada all joined forces today to say “No” to Texas-based Kinder Morgan’s project of twinning the Trans Mountain Pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby, taking its capacity from 300,000 barrels of diluted bitumen per day to 850,000 barrels per day.

“Kinder Morgan wants to nearly triple the capacity of the pipeline. This is an environmental threat not only because consuming all this oil will aggravate climate change, but also because the risks of oil spills are unacceptably high. More than 100,000 litres of light crude oil was spilled at Kinder Morgan’s terminal in Abbotsford, BC, last January.

“The first round of Kinder Morgan expansion allowed off-shore buyers with tankers to out-bid the last remaining lower mainland refinery at Burnaby. We are so eager to ship out unrefined bitumen, at great environmental risk, that we are ignoring the fact that the local economy is also short-changed,” added May.

“This is an ‘old economy’ project,” said Jane Sterk, Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia. “We don’t need more supertanker traffic in the Vancouver Harbour. What we need is to build a new renewable-energy-based economy that will create good jobs, protect our environment and establish greater long-term energy security. ”

“As a Vancouver Councillor, I have been proactive in ensuring that the City of Vancouver has taken a leadership role in opposing Kinder Morgan’s pipeline expansion”, added Adriane Carr. “Our city needs parties at the provincial and federal levels, where the decision on Kinder Morgan’s plans will be made, to step up to the plate. Only the Green Party has done so, declaring its opposition to Kinder Morgan’s plans at all three political levels. I hope this moves the NDP and the Liberals, both of which are waffling, to join us in saying ‘No’ to all the pipeline and tanker projects that threaten our economy andenvironment.”

The post The Edmonton-Vancouver Pipeline Expansion Should be Stopped appeared first on Elizabeth May.

August 31st (tomorrow) is the final day to submit a letter of comment to the Joint Review Panel, offering your opinion on the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

A letter of comment is a written statement that expresses your knowledge, views or concerns on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. A letter of comment should include any information that will help explain or support your comments as well as the nature of your interest in this proposed project.

Letters of comment must include personal contact information such as full name and mailing address. Once submitted, letters of comment become public documents.

The Panel can only consider information that participants put on the record during the joint review process. Therefore, it is very important that your voice is heard now!

You can submit your views online:

http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/efile/LetterOfComment.aspx

Or you can print a form and mail or fax to the Panel:

http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/dcmnt/lttrfcmmnt-eng.pdf

Thank you,

Craig Cantin
Outreach Director
Office of Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P.

The post Give your Feedback on the Northern Gateway Pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.