The post Statement on committee’s recommendation of a right to a healthy environment in response to Canadian Environment Protection Act review appeared first on Elizabeth May.

December 9, 2016

Re: Canadian Environmental Protection Act

Introduction:

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was initially developed in the late 1980s and received Royal Assent in 1988.  It combined a number of related acts – Ocean Dumping, Commercial Chemicals legislation, Controls on Phosphorus and Water pollution.

It promised “cradle to grave” comprehensive regulation of toxic substances.  I worked in the Minister’s Office in the development of the legislation at that time. A significant amendment brought forward by Opposition parties in committee created the Priority Substances List to fast track regulation of the backlog of toxic substances.

CEPA received a significant overhaul in 1999, expanding its preventative powers and building on the growing adherence to sustainable development.

In your review, transformational change is still possible.

This brief focusses on areas that I have not found raised in other testimony to the committee.  To avoid repeating points made strongly and clearly by others, I wish to endorse the recommendations of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and its excellent brief, as well as supplemental letters aimed at correcting distressing and unworthy testimony from Environment Canada officials. I also commend to you the brief from former Acting Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment Canada, James Riordan. The focus on the missed opportunities for preventative action in Part 4 of the Act is very strategic.  Part 4 of CEPA gives the federal government essential tools for action on climate, but is under-utilized and rarely mentioned.

The recommendations from Dr. David Boyd are also important in extending CEPA to an environmental bill of rights.  Lastly, EcoJustice provides important points on timelines and transparency.

The Scope of “Toxic”

It was a disappointment to me at the time when I joined the Minister’s office in 1986 that the scope of the Act, still under development, had already been significantly limited.  Section 93 (4) of the current version of CEPA sets out the limitation that where substances are already regulated under other federal acts, they will not be considered under CEPA.  This was largely a function of the existing scope of Environment Canada’s reach in regulating commercial chemicals.  The major threat of toxic contamination from pesticides, used as intended, was outside Environment Canada’s reach.  So too was control and regulation of radionuclides.  However, given the intended purpose of the Act, leaving out pesticides and radionuclides is an unacceptable retreat.

I urge the committee to consider recommending that the time has come, thirty years after CEPA’s original framing, for a transformational change. Where use of pesticides or contamination of the environment by radionuclides or pesticides pose a threat to health and the environment, CEPA should provide tools to protect health and the environment.  The control by Health Canada over pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act and that of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission over radionuclides should not extend to environmental contamination. CEPA should be extended to cover pesticides and radionuclides.

Appeals:

The approach to appeals of decisions to restrict or ban chemicals and other substances listed as “toxic” should be re-examined based on experience with the US legislation, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rotenticide Act.

Under CEPA, the appeals process is found in sections 333-341.  There is no reference as to which party bears the onus of proof.  The current act establishes a review panel with the powers set out in the Inquiries Act.  The inquiries Act is also silent as to onus of proof.

The approach under FIFRA is preferable in the case of appeals. In US law, when a substance is banned, in any appeal a reverse onus is applied. It is called the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR).  As the name suggests, the EPA appeals place the burden on the company seeking to overturn a ministerial decision.  The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden is clearly on the appellant, not the Minister.  The bureaucracy in Canada has always resisted banning any dangerous substance.  Those of us in the practice of environmental law, as I once was, often wondered is toxic chemicals had constitutional rights in Canada – innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Note the historical record: Canada, virtually alone in the industrial world never took regulatory action against 2,4,5-Tricholophenoxyacetic acid (2,,4,5-T), more notoriously known as half of the Agent Orange mixture, contaminated with the most toxic of all man-made chemicals, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenxo-para-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).   The US had banned it in. Sweden banned it.  Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan took independent action to ban it.  Not the federal government of Canada.  It sent its public servants to testify to its safety when a group of Nova Scotia residents (myself included) went to court in 1982 to stop a wide-spread spray programme.

By the time the bureaucracy is prepared to ban a substance, the threshold for proof has been met at a very high bar.  Despite the stated commitment to adhere to the precautionary principle, Canada still has a lousy record.  Note the current status of the asbestos debate in Canada.   Note the evidence from CELA and the “apples to apples” comparisons of Ontario to New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana. We need to toughen up our approach to toxic emissions.

A reverse onus for any and all appeals within CEPA is overdue.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with the committee.  I am, of course, available to present oral evidence and answer any questions to put my perspective on the record of your hearings.

Submitted electronically,

Respectfully,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Elizabeth’s Brief to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development re: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The new regulations will reduce scrutiny over dumping of hazardous material at sea,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “It is not clear whether the renewed permits for dumping will be accompanied by greater monitoring.”

The regulation changes stem from amendments to Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA) in the June, 2012, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act. Previously, permits issued by the Minister of Environment for projects involving disposal at sea were valid for one year and not renewable.

The recent amendments will require Environment Canada to make decisions within 90 days of the application, will allow permits to be renewed, subject to new criteria, no more than four times for “low-risk, routine” projects.  They also reduce the amount of time that a person has to submit a notice of objection in regard to a permit from 30 to 7 days, starting from the date of publication of the permit.

“This new renewing process with little or no verification and a much shorter time for objections could be very damaging,” said May.

In Canada, an average of three to four million tonnes of material are disposed of annually at sea, mainly to ensure that shipping channels and harbours are kept clear for navigation and commerce.  Substances considered for disposal include dredged material; fish waste and other organic matter; ships, aircraft, platforms, and other structures, and inert, inorganic geological matter.

The post New Disposal at Sea Regulations Potentially “Damaging”: May appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It could hardly equal C-38 in negative environmental impact. There are only so many environmental laws to be trashed. With the Fisheries Act gutted and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already eviscerated, and changes to give pipelines priority over navigable waters and endangered species, the remaining environmental laws are not a long list. There’s the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which deals primarily with toxic chemical management, and the already damaged Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There had been many rumours last spring indicating that the Species at Risk Act (SARA) would be included in the next omnibus bill and for similar treatment. Then, in late summer, it was reported that Environment Minister Peter Kent would introduce stand-alone legislation on SARA. Apparently, the provinces were unhappy with the extent of damage and change in SARA. It was not ready in time for C-45. I fear that SARAwill be wrecked soon, but at least it will receive the consideration accorded a piece of legislation in its own right.

Thus far, it seems that Stephen Harper does not have CEPA in his sights, but he clearly wants to call a full retreat on federal responsibilities over wild areas, streams, fish habitat, and the rules that require a full understanding of what is happening to nature due to federal projects. The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) was the big loser in this Act.

C-45 is the third omnibus budget bill introduced under Prime Minister Harper to take aim at this venerable piece of legislation. It was originally passed in 1882, when Sir John A Macdonald was Prime Minister. It applied to any water in Canada considered ‘navigable’. Until Stephen Harper came along, ‘navigable’ meant capable of navigation—by freighter or by canoe. But in 2009, in Harper’s first omnibus budget assault, the meaning of navigable was altered to whatever the Minister says it is. Not content with that weakening, three years later, C–38 took another run at the NWPA. As you may recall, ‘pipelines’ were excluded from the definition of ‘works or undertakings’ that block navigation. Thus the NWPA was trumped in any instance when a pipeline might impede navigation.

It would have seemed that his work was done, but the Prime Minister was not content. Along came C-45. In this omnibus bill, the Act is renamed. No longer the Navigable Water Protection Act, it is now the Navigation Protection Act. The meaning of ‘navigable’ has been fully destroyed. It has been reduced to a list: three oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers. If a waterway is not listed by name in the schedule to the Act, it no longer has any rights to navigation. It no longer requires a permit from the Minister of Transport before impeding navigation. Considering that Canada has tens of thousands of rivers and millions of lakes, the list produced is stunningly inadequate. While it is true that, depending on the jurisdiction, other laws may be in place to protect aspects of waterways, the right to travel by waterway (a limited right admittedly since the Minister of Transport could grant permits to reduce navigation) is now gone for 99% of our inland waters.

Provinces will usually have some requirements for permits before rivers can be dammed or bridges constructed. But there are gaps. And certainly the federal responsibility for navigable waters, one stemming from our Constitution, has been made a mockery. For the first time in Canada’s history, most of our waterways have been removed from federal oversight. (You can find the list of waterways on my website http://www.elizabethmaymp.ca/is-your-lake-safe.)

Given the removal of protection for navigation, C-45 includes amendments to the Fisheries Act. To protect the ability of fish to swim through rivers no longer protected by the NWPA, the Fisheries Act is amended to prohibit the use of fishing gear (weirs, nets, seines) over more than two-thirds of the width of a waterway.

The bulk of the Act deals with changes to pensions. Due to a joint effort by Opposition Parties, the reduction of benefits for MP pensions moved quickly through unanimous consent. As a result, those portions of the Actare considered passed as C-45a. Meanwhile, pension changes affecting thousands of public sector workers remain to be reviewed.

Other changes are made to the Canada Labour Act, changing the approach to holiday pay, temporary steps to refund small business tax credits, changes to the Indian Act, changing voting procedures to reverse a lease, and the elimination of several agencies: the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, the Grain Appeals Tribunal, the EI Financing Board.

It also authorizes the new Windsor-Detroit bridge, and that project’s exemption from the Fisheries Act, NWPA (since the Detroit River is one of the listed 62), SARA and CEAA.

There are many things yet to receive attention in C-45. One will require foreign visitors, even tourists, to fill out forms requiring more information, including their state of health.

I will keep taking a fine-tooth comb to this bill. I am confident I will find nothing as outrageous as the destruction of Sir John A Macdonald’s law to protect navigable waters.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Originally printed in the Island Tides.

The post Budget Bill Treacherous to Navigation appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Conservatives have hidden their destructive, anti-nature, health, and even jobs agenda in the 425-page Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Bill. Due to their imposition of time allocation on the Bill’s various stages through the House of Commons , I haven’t been able to speak during Second Reading, although I have been able to ask questions and make comments. That’s why I decided to hold a press conference Thursday morning, May 10, to itemize the various bills, regulations, policies, and programs that will be affected.

Bill C-38 Changes Clearing the Way for Resource Extraction:

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – “Environmental effects” under the new CEAA will be limited to effects on fish, aquatic species under the Species at Risk Act, migratory birds. A broader view of impacts is limited to: federal lands, Aboriginal peoples, and changes to the environment “directly linked or necessarily incidental” to federal approval.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – The Agency will have 45 days after receiving an application to decide if an assessment is required. Environmental Assessments are no longer required for projects involving federal money. The Minister is given wide discretion to decide. New “substitution” rules allow Ottawa to download EAs to the provinces; “comprehensive” studies are eliminated. Cabinet will be able to over-rule decisions. A retroactive section sets the clock at July 2010 for existing projects.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act – The present one-year limit to permits for disposing waste at sea can now be renewed four times. The 3 and 5 year time limits protecting Species at Risk from industrial harm will now be open-ended.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act – This legislation, which required government accountability and results reporting on climate change policies, is being repealed.

Fisheries Act – Fish habitat provisions will be changed to protect only fish of “commercial, Aboriginal, and recreational” value and even those habitat protections are weakened. The new provisions create an incentive to drain a lake and kill all the fish, if not in a fishery, in order to fill a dry hole with mining tailings.

Navigable Waters Protection Act – Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of this Act. Also, the National Energy Board absorbs the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) whenever a pipeline crosses navigable waters. The NWPA is amended to say a pipeline is not a “work” within that Act.

National Energy Board Act – NEB reviews will be limited to two years – and then its decisions can be reversed by the Cabinet, including the present Northern Gateway Pipeline review.

Species at Risk Act – This is being amended to exempt the National Energy Board from having to impose conditions to protect critical habitat on projects it approves. Also, companies won’t have to renew permits on projects threatening critical habitat.

Parks Canada Agency Act – Reporting requirements are being reduced, including the annual report. 638 of the nearly 3000 Parks Canada workers will be cut. Environmental monitoring and ecological restoration in the Gulf Islands National Park are being cut.

Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act – This will be changed to exempt pipelines from the Navigational Waters Act. Coasting Trade Act – This will be changed to promote seismic testing allowing increased off-shore drilling.

Nuclear Safety Control Act – Environmental Assessments will be moved to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a licensing body not an assessing body – so there is a built-in conflict.

Canada Seeds Act – This is being revamped so the job of inspecting seed crops is transferred from Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors to “authorized service providers” the private sector.

Agriculture Affected – Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, publicly owned grasslands have acted as community pastures under federal management, leasing grazing rights to farmers so they could devote their good land to crops, not livestock. This will end. Also, the Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, BC, an important site for quarantine and virus-testing on plant stock strategically located across the Salish Sea to protect BC’s primary agricultural regions, will be moved to the heart of BC’s fruit and wine industries.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy – The NRTEE brought industry leaders, environmentalists, First Nations, labour, and policy makers together to provide non-partisan research and advice on federal policies. Its demise will leave a policy vacuum in relation to Canada’s economic development.

More Attacks on Environmental Groups – The charities sections now preclude gifts which may result in political activity. The $8 million new money to harass charities is unjustified.

Water Programs – Environment Canada is cutting several water-related programs and others will be cut severely, including some aimed at promoting or monitoring water-use efficiency.

Wastewater Survey – The Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the only national study of water consumption habits, is being cut after being in place since 1983.

Monitoring Effluent – Environment Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, a systematic method for measuring the quality of effluent discharge, including from mines and pulp mills, will be cut by 20 percent.

In spite of the fact that most Canadians have no idea how seriously Bill C-38 will affect their lives, the Senate is beginning hearings so that Conservative Senators can vote on it as soon as possible. This railroading version of democracy is tragic for Canada.

The Green Party of Canada is launching its C-38: Environment Devastation Act campaign to engage Canadians in having their C-38 concerns heard. Please visit budgetdevastation.ca for more information.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Originally posted on rabble.ca.

The post Clarifiying the deliberately confusing Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[mfoLhNGxUHA]

“As more and more people are realizing, the Harper Conservatives have packed their so-called budget bill with lots of non-budget items in order to hide them from the public, and even confuse their elected representatives,” said May.  “I decided it was time to itemize the various bills, regulations, policies, and programs that will be affected.”

Due to the Conservatives’ imposition of time allocation, May has not been able to speak on Second Reading, although she has been able to ask questions and make comments in the House of Commons.

Bill C-38 Changes Clearing the Way for Resource Extraction

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – “Environmental effects” under the new CEAA will be limited to effects on fish, aquatic species under the Species at Risk Act, migratory birds.  A broader view of impacts is limited to:  federal lands, Aboriginal peoples, and changes to the environment “directly linked or necessarily incidental” to federal approval. 

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – The Agency will have 45 days after receiving an application to decide if an assessment is required.  Environmental Assessments are no longer required for projects involving federal money.  The Minister is given wide discretion to decide.  New “substitution” rules allow Ottawa to download EAs to the provinces; “comprehensive” studies are eliminated.  Cabinet will be able to over-rule decisions.  A retroactive section sets the clock at July 2010 for existing projects.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act – The present one-year limit to permits for disposing waste at sea can now be renewed four times.   The 3 and 5 year time limits protecting Species at Risk from industrial harm will now be open-ended.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act – This legislation, which required government accountability and results reporting on climate change policies, is being repealed.

Fisheries Act – Fish habitat provisions will be changed to protect only fish of “commercial, Aboriginal, and recreational” value and even those habitat protections are weakened.  The new provisions create an incentive to drain a lake and kill all the fish, if not in a fishery, in order to fill a dry hole with mining tailings.

Navigable Waters Protection Act – Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of this Act.  Also, the National Energy Board absorbs the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) whenever a pipeline crosses navigable waters.  The NWPA is amended to say a pipeline is not a “work” within that Act.

National Energy Board Act – NEB reviews will be limited to two years – and then its decisions can be reversed by the Cabinet, including the present Northern Gateway Pipeline review.

Species at Risk Act – This is being amended to exempt the National Energy Board from having to impose conditions to protect critical habitat on projects it approves.  Also, companies won’t have to renew permits on projects threatening critical habitat.

Parks Canada Agency Act – Reporting requirements are being reduced, including the annual report.  638 of the nearly 3000 Parks Canada workers will be cut.  Environmental monitoring and ecological restoration in the Gulf Islands National Park are being cut.

Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act – This will be changed to exempt pipelines from the Navigational Waters Act.

Coasting Trade Act – This will be changed to promote seismic testing allowing increased off-shore drilling.

Nuclear Safety Control Act – Environmental Assessments will be moved to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a licensing body not an assessing body – so there is a built-in conflict.

Canada Seeds Act – This is being revamped so the job of inspecting seed crops is transferred from Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors to “authorized service providers” the private sector.

Agriculture Affected – Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, publicly owned grasslands have acted as community pastures under federal management, leasing grazing rights to farmers so they could devote their good land to crops, not livestock.  This will end.  Also, the Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, BC, an important site for quarantine and virus-testing on plant stock strategically located across the Salish Sea to protect BC’s primary agricultural regions, will be moved to the heart of BC’s fruit and wine industries.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy – The NRTEE brought industry leaders, environmentalists, First Nations, labour, and policy makers together to provide non-partisan research and advice on federal policies.  Its demise will leave a policy vacuum in relation to Canada`s economic development.

More Attacks on Environmental Groups – The charities sections now preclude gifts which may result in political activity.  The $8 million new money to harass charities is unjustified.

Water Programs – Environment Canada is cutting several water-related programs and others will be cut severely, including some aimed at promoting or monitoring water-use efficiency.  

Wastewater Survey – The Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the only national study of water consumption habits, is being cut after being in place since 1983. 

Monitoring Effluent – Environment Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, a systematic method for measuring the quality of effluent discharge, including from mines and pulp mills, will be cut by 20 percent. 

“In spite of the fact that most Canadians have no idea how seriously Bill C-38 will affect their lives, the Senate is about to begin hearings so that Conservative Senators can vote on it as soon as possible,” said May.  “This railroading version of democracy is tragic for Canada.”

The Green Party of Canada is launching its C-38: Environment Devastation Act campaign to engage Canadians in having their C-38 concerns heard. Please visit budgetdevastation.ca for more information.

The post May Clarifies Deliberately Confusing Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Unlike the laws I used to study in law school, laws with names that sound like statutes, Stephen Harper’s proposed legislation must go through focus group testing for the most “election-ready” phrasing. For example, the omnibus crime bill which brought in mandatory minimum sentences and a plethora of moves decried by every criminologist and bar society was christened the “Safe Streets and Communities Act.” And Bill C-36, an act of all of four paragraphs amending one sub-section of the Criminal Code in relation to sentencing people convicted of assault (to allow taking into account age of the victim) was given a fabulously overblown title — “Protecting Canada’s Seniors Act.”  


The launch almost always involves a media and MP opportunity to digest the laws in a “lock-up” — an advance briefing usually including colour brochures and charts and graphs and, if not brass bands, at least a serious amount of noise.  


Not so for Bill C-38, known as the omnibus budget bill. Sure, it did get the fabulous title: the “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act.” There all similarities to other pieces of legislation end.   


There was no announcement. No press release for first reading. There was no lock-up. There were no schematic guides to understand the changes to the 70 laws undergoing a brutal overhaul. Like surgery without an anesthetic, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was repealed and a whole new act brought in. While the four-paragraph seniors bill, C-36, will get its own committee hearings and full debate in the House, the 420-page Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, will be fast-tracked through the Finance Committee. 

To add injury to insult, Conservatives limited the number of days allowed for debate at second reading of C-38. Government House Leader Peter Van Loan puffed himself up to pronounce that this was a longer time for debate than other budget bills. Meanwhile the Opposition MPs are left to protest that no other budget bill in Canadian history had repealed, amended or overhauled 70 existing pieces of legislation.


Some laws are the stuff of future Conservative campaigning. They are over-sold and put in the front window. Then there is the orphaned and unloved bastard child of Harper’s legislative agenda. It is hidden. It is not to be placed in the front window, nor proclaimed as it should be: “Vote for the Conservative Party, tough on nature!” The good news in this is that Stephen Harper knows that his base would hate a lot of what’s in C-38. That’s why he is hiding it — in a way that hides it in plain sight for anyone who is willing to dig deep and read the fine print. 

Here’s what is in C-38 on the environment. (C-38 threatens more than environmental damage, but this should give you a sense of why I am determined to stop this bill.)


Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ditched. Repealed and replaced with a completely new act. “Environmental effects” under the new CEAA will be limited to effects on fish, aquatic species under the Species at Risk Act, migratory birds. A broader view of impacts is limited to federal lands, Aboriginal peoples, and changes to the environment “directly linked or necessarily incidental” to federal approval. 


Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency seriously weakened. The agency will have 45 days after receiving an application to decide if an assessment is required. Environmental assessments are no longer required for projects involving federal money. The minister is given wide discretion to decide. New “substitution” rules allow Ottawa to download EAs to the provinces; “comprehensive” studies are eliminated. Cabinet will be able to over-rule decisions. A retroactive section sets the clock at July 2010 for existing projects.


Canadian Environmental Protection Act undercut. The present one-year limit to permits for disposing waste at sea can now be renewed four times. The three and five-year time limits protecting species at risk from industrial harm will now be open-ended.


Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act killed. This legislation, which required government accountability and results reporting on climate change policies, is being repealed.


Fisheries Act seriously weakened. Fish habitat provisions will be changed to protect only fish of “commercial, Aboriginal, and recreational” value and even those habitat protections are weakened. The new provisions create an incentive to drain a lake and kill all the fish, if not in a fishery, in order to fill a dry hole with mining tailings.


Navigable Waters Protection Act hampered. Pipelines and power lines will be exempt from the provisions of this act. Also, the National Energy Board absorbs the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) whenever a pipeline crosses navigable waters. The NWPA is amended to say a pipeline is not a “work” within that act.


Energy Board Act neutered. National Energy Board reviews will be limited to two years — and then its decisions can be reversed by the cabinet, including the present Northern Gateway Pipeline review. 

Species at Risk Act hamstrung. This is being amended to exempt the National Energy Board from having to impose conditions to protect critical habitat on projects it approves. Also, companies won’t have to renew permits on projects threatening critical habitat.


Parks Canada Agency Act trimmed, staff cut. Reporting requirements are being reduced, including the annual report. Six hundred and thirty eight of the nearly 3,000 Parks Canada workers will be cut. Environmental monitoring and ecological restoration in the Gulf Islands National Park are being cut.


Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act made more industry friendly. This will be changed to exempt pipelines from the Navigational Waters Act.


Coasting Trade Act made more offshore drilling friendly. This will be changed to promote seismic testing allowing increased off-shore drilling.


Nuclear Safety Control Act undermined. Environmental assessments will be moved to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a licensing body not an assessing body — so there is a built-in conflict.


Canada Seeds Act inspections privatized. This is being revamped so the job of inspecting seed crops is transferred from Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors to “authorized service providers,” the private sector.


Agriculture affected. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, publicly-owned grasslands have acted as community pastures under federal management, leasing grazing rights to farmers so they could devote their good land to crops, not livestock. This will end. Also, the Centre for Plant Health in Sidney, B.C., an important site for quarantine and virus-testing on plant stock strategically located across the Salish Sea to protect B.C.’s primary agricultural regions, will be moved to the heart of B.C.’s fruit and wine industries.


National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy killed. The NRTEE brought industry leaders, environmentalists, First Nations, labour, and policy makers together to provide non-partisan research and advice on federal policies. Its demise will leave a policy vacuum in relation to Canada’s economic development.


More attacks on environmental groups funded. The charities sections now preclude gifts which may result in political activity. The $8 million new money to harass charities is unjustified.


Water programs cut. Environment Canada is cutting several water-related programs and others will be cut severely, including some aimed at promoting or monitoring water-use efficiency.  


Wastewater survey cut. The Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the only national study of water consumption habits, is being cut after being in place since 1983. 


Monitoring effluent cut. Environment Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, a systematic method for measuring the quality of effluent discharge, including from mines and pulp mills, will be cut by 20 per cent. 


In spite of the fact that most Canadians have no idea how seriously Bill C-38 will affect their lives, the Senate is about to begin hearings so that Conservative senators can vote on it as soon as possible. This railroading version of democracy is tragic for Canada. 


The Green Party of Canada is launching its C-38: Environment Devastation Act campaign to engage Canadians in having their C-38 concerns heard. Please visit our website for more information.

Elizabeth May is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Originally posted in the Tyee.

The post Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

But I had to wonder.  Was he going for political satire,? Some sort of self-referential pop cultural joke in kicking off the budget implementation bill debate?  I mean, he must have read Andrew Coyne’s piece in the National Post. Noting that a huge number of non-budgetary matters are stuffed in the over 420 pages of C-38, much of it dramatically changing environmental laws, Coyne wrote, “This is not remotely a budget bill, despite its name,” further noting that while throwing non-budgetary matters into a budget bill is not unknown, in C-38, “The scale and scope are on a level not previously seen, or tolerated.”  (Or if the PM didn’t read it, he must have people who read it for him and left post-it notes somewhere he would see saying, “Coyne and others seem to have noticed the budget bill is crammed full of new laws to remove environmental protection. Offence to democracy alleged…must deflect.”)

No sign of recognizing anger is stirring across the land. They went for the Full Monty as it were.  No shame.

The kick-off speaker to the Budget Implementation Bill?  Not the Minister of Finance. No sir. What would Flaherty have to say about a budget bill anyway?  The lead Conservative Speaker was Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.  Say it ain’t so, Joe.

He gave the standard Harper “energy super power” message. It goes like this:

Canada is an energy super-power — in the same way a business in bankruptcy is a super-power. Everything must go.  We are running out of time to sell everything fast.  Oil-hungry markets won’t wait.

Really?  “We need to act quickly,” said Joe Oliver in the House today.  But the existing pipeline infrastructure is, according to Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers projections, sufficient to meet demand until oil sands production expands by 150%. (Testimony of former government petroleum geologist, J. David Hughes, to the NEB Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project).

Minister Oliver cited many statistics from the International Energy Agency (IEA), establishing that the world is energy-hungry and oil-thirsty…without once mentioning the IEA urgent warnings about the climate crisis.  The IEA is screaming from the rooftops (figuratively speaking, but the reports are increasingly frantic) that time is running out to reduce dependency on fossil fuels to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change at its worst. No reference either to Mr. Harper’s promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (now there’s a budget measure), promised in 2009 at the G-20, underscored in every IEA report as an urgent step, which the PM has steadfastly ignored.  No reference to the International Energy Agency advice that Canada needs to put a price on carbon.

And then for more laughs, in answer to a question from one of his colleagues, Mr. Oliver said, “Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that we have a robust environmental review of major projects…  under the aegis of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency.”

Now, in fairness to Mr. Oliver, there is no particular reason he should know much about the environmental laws C-38 is destroying. He is not the author of this strategy; the Prime Minister is.  And the fact that Canada doesn’t have an agency called the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency is not something he has to know…Peter Kent should know it, and, of course, he spoke next. No sign of the finance minister…but what would he have to contribute to a debate about freeing the oilsands and mining from the tyranny of environmental laws.  I expected to hear, “Free at last, free at last…” from some conservative script, recycling the end of the long-gun registry invocation of the Rev. Martin Luther King in more triumphalist Libertarian oratory.

With 420 pages plus of detailed, complex and sweeping changes to laws originally passed decades ago, any thought that there was even a hint of shame in the Conservative strategy was dashed. Within the first hours of debate, Peter Van Loan made a motion to invoke time allocation on Bill C-38. After all, we are in a hurry.

None of this is funny.  It is an outrage.  PLEASE, if you are angry, say so. Please insist that your MP work to pull the environmental laws impacted by this bill (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act*, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, National Round Table on Environment and Economy Act*, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act*), out of the so-called budget bill.

(Note: the bills marked with * are repealed in C-38. CEAA is replaced with a brand new, gutted version of environmental assessment law, which, at this rate will be passed by the end of June — without a single day of hearings before the environment committee).

The post You have to be kidding…. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ZWhrw8BeKJA]

If changing one subsection to environmental law through a budget bill is completely unacceptable, why is changing hundreds of sections of a dozen environmental laws acceptable to the Prime Minister?

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long-standing practice, of course, for budget implementation bills to actually implement budgets. Our budget is focused on the economic growth and long-term prosperity of the country, and that includes moving forward with responsible resource development so that we can ensure prosperity for generations to come.

Canada has in great quantities the resources the world needs, the emerging developing world, countries like China and India. The development of those resources are the key to the prosperity, wealth and social well-being of Canadians for generations to come. That is why we are moving on it and that is why it is in the budget implementation bill.

The post Oral Questions – The Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.