By Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Green MP Bruce Hyer

What is an environmental issue? However you define it, Harper is against it.

“Environment” means different things to different people.

To some, it is the natural world for which conservation values will protect sustainable populations and ecosystems for future generations. The roots of that conservation ethic go back to the late 1800s, and Gifford Pinchot, the first dean of Yale School of Forestry. The ethic embraces “sustainable use” of forests and fish and the renewable resources that have supported economies.

Then, there’s the more modern concept of environment, stemming from Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, published in 1962 and credited with helping launch the environmental movement in the U.S. The 1960s era of environmental awareness was actually more concerned with how human activity and new technologies-in this case toxic synthetic pesticides-threatened species, but perhaps more significantly, human health as well. Now that the publication of Silent Spring has passed the 50-year mark, it hardly is “modern” anymore. Our current use of the term “environment” has increasingly been subsumed in the media into one issue only-climate change.

Yet, climate change is not primarily an environmental issue. Sure, it involves the environment. In the same way drowning involves water, but we do not describe drowning as a “water issue.” Climate change, like drowning, is a survival issue. Climate change is an issue that can be described best as a security threat-although it involves questions of energy, economy, and the environment.

The harsh reality of our current political climate is that all the basic notions of the environment are under assault. We have entered a political era of “decision-based evidence making.” Stephen Harper’s administration has launched an unprecedented assault on government science. More than 2,000 scientists and researchers in the federal civil service have lost their jobs. Most of these scientists were working in areas of the “environment.”

All the scientists working in our national parks have been laid off. Fisheries and Oceans has lost all its habitat specialists after Bill C-38 gutted the Fisheries Act to remove habitat protection. The entire Marine Contaminants Program at DFO has been eliminated. The list is long. Mr. Harper is not just neglecting science; he is attacking any science or data or evidence that runs contrary to his beliefs or agenda.

Meanwhile, even though the only legislative change Harper has made to the Species at Risk Act was to remove the application of SARA when a pipeline is involved (also in C-38), still SARA is being more broadly undermined. Species at risk are going unprotected.

National parks no longer exclude oil and gas activity (with the tragic circumstances of the creation of Sable Island National Park.) This could be the thin end of the wedge for industrial activity in parks, in general. Meanwhile, parks are being privatized piecemeal, as is clear from the Jasper National Park “ice walk,” the Banff hot springs, and now a hotel proposal inside the national park in Jasper. Harper may have expanded national park boundaries, but he has endangered the protection of what lies inside the boundaries.

The pressure to clear away any regulatory hurdles to oil and gas expansion has led to the wholesale dismantling of decades’ worth of environmental laws and regulation. From legislation passed under prime minister John A. Macdonald (Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act) to laws passed under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, (the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and National Round Table on Environment and Economy), nothing is sacred. The last eight years bear witness to a devastating reversal of environmental law in Canada. It needs to be said that Canada’s laws never were as strong in environmental protection as those of the U.S. or other industrialized countries, such as Germany. In the race for the bottom, Canada has no competition.

Nowhere is the abdication of environmental responsibility as disturbing as in the area of climate change. Harper first cancelled our legally binding Kyoto targets, then withdrew from the treaty, adopted his own targets for GHG reductions in Copenhagen in 2009, and has now declared those will not be met either. True, he has not actually declared his rejection of his own targets, but the new timeline for oil and gas regulations, first promised when John Baird was environment minister nearly seven years ago (The “Turning the Corner” plan), make it clear no real effort is contemplated.

We all use oil. We will for a long time to come, but it must be used wisely, and we should all seek to reduce our consumption as much as possible, and shift to more renewable and sustainable energy sources. The sad and dispiriting irony is that if Canada embraced real action, we will create more jobs and revitalize our economy faster than by pursuing the mindless vision that puts all our eggs in the bitumen basket. Canada deserves better. We deserve an energy plan, a climate plan, and the new industrial revolution of clean-tech and renewables. We can still get there from here. The first step is for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to get out of the way.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich- Gulf Islands, B.C., and Green Party MP Bruce Hyer represents Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.

Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Climate change also a security threat appeared first on Elizabeth May.

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS DESIGNATING PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, 2012

May 20^th, 2013

Dear Mr. McCauley:

The following comments are submitted as a response to the government’s call for comments on the Regulations Amending the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), which were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I: Notices and Proposed Regulations, Vol. 147, No. 16, on April 20^th, 2013.

Before commenting on the nature of the new changes, I would like to echo comments made by environmental groups and other concerned parties regarding the Conservative administration’s absolute disregard for public and parliamentary input on the new legislative framework for federal environmental assessment. CEAA 2012 and the current regulations came into force on July 6^th, 2012. Comments on the regulations were only solicited after the regulations were promulgated, thereby precluding any meaningful public participation in their formulation.  This objectionable approach simply reflected and amplified the shockingly antidemocratic and authoritarian manner in which the new act was fast-tracked through Parliament, buried within 425 pages of omnibus budget implementation legislation. In my capacity as an MP and leader of the Green Party, I opposed the repealing of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its replacement with a whole new federal environmental assessment regime in Bill C-38. However, I made a good faith effort in the circumstances to correct the deficiencies of the legislation. Of the 302 substantive, policy-oriented amendments that I drafted to the bill, over a hundred were directed at improving CEAA 2012. Even though I was mindful of heeding the executive’s stated objectives, keeping the new timelines for project reviews intact, not one of my amendments was considered by the government.

In the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement accompanying the draft amendments, it is stated that “the Regulations must be designed in consideration of the structure of CEAA 2012. “ Unfortunately, this banal statement of the status quo only hints at the gravity of the situation. The discussion throughout the impact statement about striking a ‘balance’ between projects  listed in the Regulations that have ‘low or limited potential for significant adverse environmental effects’ and those that have a high potential does not properly account for the dramatically restricted scope and compromised nature of the new act. “Environmental effects’ under the new Act are limited to effects on fish, aquatic species under the Species at Risk Act, and migratory birds. As Robert Gibson of Waterloo University put it, “the narrow definition of ‘environmental effects ‘ and the narrow focus on particular matters of federal mandate mean that even in a case where significant adverse environmental effects were identified, these effects would represent only a fraction of the overall biophysical implications of the proposed project […] Without expansion of this agenda,  CEAA 2012 would  cease to be an environmental assessment law –it would be little more than an information gathering exercise for permitting other federal decisions in a limited set of areas where the federal government chooses to act” [i] Any serious consideration of achieving effective and efficient environmental assessment has to go beyond the focus on questions of ‘balancing’ the project list and ministerial designation and involve redrafting the framework of the act.

Barring the complete redrafting of CEAA 2012, my immediate concerns with the regulations amending the regulations may be summarized as follows:

1. There should be no de-listing or removal of items from the project list once they are established on the list.  To begin with, the current project list is essentially the Comprehensive Studies List carried over from the former Act. This list was never intended to capture all adverse environmental effects, but was the higher level of study for projects considered to require more comprehensive environmental assessment. In the RIAS, the government claims that the amendments are being proposed to ‘ensure the Regulations appropriately reflect those major projects that have the greatest potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction.” Given that the former Comprehensive List aimed to capture these major projects, and that the government has advanced absolutely no evidence to explain why certain items should be removed from the current list, it can only be concluded that the deletions from the list are arbitrary and political. The list should be treated as a workable base to which inclusions are added based on evidence, not as a wish-list subject to the whims of government and industry.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that regulatory burdens exist for proponents in preparing project descriptions under CEAA 2012, or that the Agency resources may be constrained by an ‘overly broad pool of projects’. Given the highly restricted scope of ‘environmental effects,’ not to mention the paucity of information required for project descriptions, these claims are ludicrous.   All significant environmental activities that involve federal powers should be included on the project list so that they can be subject to the screening process. (This is not as satisfactory an option as requiring environmental assessments of all projects on the project list, however.) Under CEAA 2012, where the CEA Agency is the responsible authority, it cannot be argued that the simple addition of an activity on the project list results in any burden for proponents or the Agency, as the decision to undertake an environmental assessment is discretionary and rests with the Agency (s. 10, CEAA 2012).
3. The government has stated that the amendments are being proposed to ensure that the Regulations ‘appropriately reflect’ the ‘major projects’ that have the ‘greatest potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction’ and, secondly, to ‘improve the clarity of the Regulations and their internal consistency.” The amendments achieve neither objective and offer no policy rationale, not to mention supporting evidence, for the advisability of adding or removing specific items to or from the list. For instance, how was it determined that heavy oil and oil sands processing facilities do not have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects? Why is it that the first offshore exploratory wells in Exploration Licence areas will be included but not the later ones? Why is it that expansions of oil sands mines will be included but not in situ projects like steam assisted gravity drainage oil sands projects? In terms of the fragmentation of habitat, the latter is much worse than the former. These inconsistent and perplexing additions and omissions do not suggest that decisions were made on evidence-based policy.

In my view, any projects involving federal funds, federal lands or requiring a permit from a federal authority should be added to the project list.

Respectfully submitted,

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

The post Proposed amendments to the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment act, 2012 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As much as I think the world of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, he could not be more wrong about what his administration and his party are doing to environmental laws in this country. It is absolutely abominable to see CEAA destroyed, the Fisheries Act weakened and, by the way, the measures that he has described as being positive are not included in the bill we are discussing today.

John Weston: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a great contributor to the debate in the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Certainly, she exemplifies the importance of our government listening.

Mr. Fraser certainly has been involved in that debate and always will be, as long as he has a breath to breathe. He has provided some very good constructive criticism for our government.

I want to give great credit to our Minister of the Environment and our Minister of Finance for the way they have listened. That is why we have such ingenious provisions in the budget. They are provisions that reflect the needs of Canadians, provisions that, for instance, invest $10 million in partnerships with groups across Canada. They are the engines in the protection of habitat. They galvanize volunteers. They understand the on-the-ground needs of the fish and the habitat.

Our government will be standing with those people across Canada as we protect our habitat and produce an environment that is not only as good as but is better than the one we inherited.

The post Economic Action Plan 2013 (Bill C-60) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“10,000 barrels of dilbit, a mixture of bitumen and toxic diluent, were spilled in Arkansas last week. Citizens in Toronto and everywhere along Enbridge’s Line 9 have legitimate concerns and tough questions to ask the NEB. Muzzling their opposition is against basic principles of natural justice. These new barriers to free speech would not stand up to judicial review,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

In their fight against Omnibus Bill C-38, the Greens tried to prevent the destruction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Green Leader Elizabeth May put forward amendments –rejected by the Conservatives– to protect rights for public participation, which were once fundamental to the CEAA. The terms used in C-38 restrict public participation to those “directly affected”. “It is that terminology that has led to the abuse we witness today, but even with that restrictive language, the NEB has made it even more restrictive by adding its own two-week timeline,” said May.

“Enbridge plans to pump dilbit, with added benzene, a notorious carcinogen, through our neighbourhoods using an aging pipe system originally built for natural gas. What would a spill near Lake Ontario mean for the water supply of millions of people?” asked May.

“After muzzling scientists, Stephen Harper muzzles citizens. Add his obsession for the oil business and his disregard for Parliament in the mix, and you’ve got a great example of Harperland in action,” said May.

The post Enbridge’s Line 9: Needing Permission to Talk About a Pipeline Going Through Your Neighbourhood? Welcome to Harperland. appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Did the support of 24 per cent of the electorate on election day give the federal government a mandate for its radical project to gut environmental protection? Apparently. In our apathy-inducing first-past-the-post political system a small minority can translate into a big majority, which can disregard public opinion and do whatever it wants.

Here is a list of what the feds have accomplished so far in their three-pronged environmental strategy of deregulation, cutting information and research and targeting dissenting voices:

1. Eliminated Canada’s international commitment to mitigate climate change, including the repeal of the 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
2. Undermined global climate negotiations to avoid climate action.
3. Failed to create a plan to address climate change.
4. Eliminated energy conservation and efficiency and renewable energy funding while continuing subsidies to fossil fuels.
5. Eliminated funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.
6. Eliminated the climate adaptation research group within Environment Canada.
7. Eliminated scientists in Natural Resources Canada to study ice core data.
8. Cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Environment Canada.
9. Repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, weakening the federal environmental assessment process.
10. Eliminated accepted criteria for compulsory environmental assessments, leaving such reviews to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment and political appointees.
11. Eliminated the jobs of hundreds of scientists working for various government departments that focus on the environment and wildlife.
12. Weakened elements of the Species at Risk Act.
13. Amended the Species at Risk Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act to allow the National Energy Board to assume jurisdiction of endangered species or navigable waters in the way of any pipeline.
14. Allowing the federal cabinet, rather than the National Energy Board, to make decisions about approvals for major pipeline projects.
15. Introduced cuts to ozone monitoring.
16. Ended monitoring of smoke stack emissions.
17. Eliminated the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.
18. Weakened the Fisheries Act in the areas of habitat protection and eliminated the marine contaminants program.
19. Fired all DFO habitat officers in British Columbia.
20. Killed the Navigable Waters Protection Act, replacing it with the Navigation Protection Act, which effectively makes major pipeline and interprovincial power line projects exempt from requirements for proponents to prove they wouldn’t damage navigable waterways.
21. Reduced federal protection of waterways to a small number of water bodies and rivers.
22. Parks Canada no longer has to conduct periodic environmental audits or management plan reviews.
23. Eliminated funding for the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment.
24. Eliminated support for the Experimental Lakes Program.
25. Eliminated funding for a dozen Arctic science research stations. Closed the Polar Arctic and Environmental Laboratory and the Yukon Research Lab.
26. Started privatization and eliminated ecological staff positions in National Parks.
27. Made a systemic effort to cut research, information and analysis with respect to environmental issues.
28. Attacked environmental and First Nations organizations for critiquing resource development.
29. Provided the Canada Revenue Agency with an extra $8 million to crack down on environmental charities.
30. Provided oil companies with unprecedented access to senior government leaders.
31. Muzzled government scientists who have been conducting research on various climate and environmental issues.
32. Cut funding to the Network on Women’s Health and the Environment.
33. Cut funding of the Canadian Environmental Network.
34. In addition to changing the definition of “aboriginal fishery” in the Fisheries Act, without consulting First Nations governments introduced changes to the Indian Act designed to make it faster and easier for First Nations to “take advantage of economic opportunities” by leasing designated reserve lands based on a majority of votes from those in attendance at a meeting or in a referendum, instead of waiting for a majority vote from all eligible voters.
35. Gave the aboriginal affairs minister the authority to call a band meeting or referendum for the purpose of considering a surrender of the band’s territory.
36. The minister can accept or refuse the land designation after receiving a resolution from the band council.
37. Eliminated the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, the Indian Head Tree Nursery and the PFRA pasture management program on millions of acres of sensitive grasslands.
38. Provided unprecedented support to industries to exploit natural resources with minimal environmental oversight.

Originally printed in the Star Pheonix.

The post Feds systematically gut environmental protection appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The issue is far more fundamental than erasing the word “environment” from the NWPA website. Like the Fisheries Act in C-38, dismantling the Navigable Waters Protection Act takes a hatchet to federal constitutional powers that have been foundational in environmental law for generations. And in both cases, the Conservative talking points are the same. “This act was never about the environment, it was about fisheries — not fish; it was about navigation — not waters.”

If I have heard it once, in C-38 and C-45 debates, I have heard it a hundred times — “This act was never designed to (fill in the blank — protect fishery habitat, protect free flowing rivers.)”

And that’s why I wanted to pull out my old Constitutional Law textbook. What was in the mind of the drafters of the British North America Act in 1867 is completely irrelevant to 21^st Century constitutional heads of power. The powers set in 1867 do not change, but their application moves with the times. Otherwise we should repeal all criminal laws that deal with internet crime. There is no way Sir John A. Macdonald was worried about cyber crime, so out it goes!

Here’s what my old law school text book, says, by Canada’s still leading Constitutional law expert, Prof. Peter Hogg:

“It is well established that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects (or heads of power) is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867. For example, the phrase “undertakings connecting the provinces with any other or others of the provinces,” (s. 92(10(a)) includes an interprovincial telephone system, although the telephone was unknown in 1867; the phrase “criminal law” (s. 91(27)) “is not confined to what was criminal by the law of England or any other province in 1867; the phrase “banking” (s. 91(15)) is not confined to “the extent and kind of business actually carried out by banks in Canada in 1867.” On the contrary, the words of the Act are to be given a “progressive interpretation”, so that they are continuously adapted to new conditions and new ideas.”

Often cited is this quote from Lord Sankey in 1930, “The B.N.A. Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.” Again, the hatchet image comes to mind. Harper is cutting into the very essence of the Constitutional law powers over the environment.

So it is clear that whatever was intended in 1867, the Fisheries Act has been the primary tool for the protection of healthy eco-systems that support fish populations across Canada for decades and the NWPA has been the lynchpin in any effort to protect free flowing water ways, for navigation — including recreational navigation and access by canoeists and kayakers to the nations waterways — for fish, and for the health of the ecosystem.

And here’s another Constitutional reality — cutting into the federal authority does not give the provinces the authority to take over. It is the principle of “exclusiveness.” Again, here’s Peter Hogg: “… if either the Parliament or a Legislature fails to legislate to the full limit of its power this does not have the effect of augmenting the powers of any other level of government.”

So, with C-45 corrupting the NWPA to such a degree that something like 98 per cent of our waters within Canada (ie: excluding oceans) will no longer be covered under any federal navigation laws, who can ensure the right to move along our waterways? The answer in Constitutional terms is no level of government. No one.

The Conservative talking points say “Don’t worry. Rights to navigation are still covered by Common Law.” In the technical briefing, officials actually said that rights to navigation go back to ancient Rome. (So do Emperors and bread and circuses, but I digress).

So how does common law protection help a home owner on a brook who wants to be able to paddle to the river down from their home when someone proposes (or just builds) a dam or an obstruction? Under the pre-C-45 NWPA, the person building the obstruction is breaking the law. A permit was needed by the Minister of Transport to block that stream. The RCMP can be called. Canadians have a right to navigate waterways. Post C-45, unless the waterway is one of the 62 listed rivers or 97 listed lakes, the homeowner cannot call the RCMP. It is not clear the person building a dam is breaking the law until the homeowner goes to court to prove it. Common law cases are much harder to pursue than statutory or administrative reviews. Cold comfort indeed.

Ironically, the changes to the Fisheries Act in C-45, making it an offence to block two-thirds of the width of any river or stream with fishing gear or block the passage of fish with fishing gear was needed now that the impact of the NWPA is being wiped out on most waterways.

This is not streamlining. This is dismantling Constitutional heads of power entrusted solely to the federal level of government. Does Stephen Harper really think Canadians care nothing for our history? For our constitution?

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.
Originally published on iPolitics.ca.

The post The big picture of Harper’s assault on the Constitution appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Former U.S. President G. W. Bush was caught on camera once referring to the “vision thing.” Some commentators have suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not enunciated a clear vision. If Canadians wonder what Harper’s vision might be, look to the mania for slashing laws that might regulate the pace of fossil fuel development, to gagging and terminating scientific research that might call into question the impacts of said development, and the new obsession with attracting Chinese investment to ensure galloping growth in the oil sands. Harper has said that his goal is six million barrels of oil a day from the oil sands. This would amount to more than tripling the current levels of production. It is an odd goal for a government. It appears to me that all policy areas are subsumed to this one objective.

It did not come as a surprise that access to information requests from Postmedia’s Mike De Souza showed that, within the bureaucracy, the Enbridge Northern Gateway project was “top of mind” when drafting the 2012 budget. No wonder the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and its anaemic replacement within the omnibus budget bill; no wonder the gutting of the Fisheries Act, the re-working of the Navigable Water Protection Act to exclude pipelines as barriers to navigation, and the radical change of the National Energy Board Act to allow Cabinet to overturn a National Energy Board (NEB) decision. Now we hear the Species at Risk Act will be subjected to similar “streamlining.”

At the same time, there has been an unprecedented slashing of scientific capacity. Since spring 2012, allegedly due to internal decisions of the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, pink slips have been issued to more than 70 scientists across Canada in the marine contaminants program, the government has announced it will no longer support the world-class Experimental Lakes Area (58 lakes in western Ontario, the only place on the planet allowing whole lake experiments in fresh water science), the closing of the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory (the closest research station to the North Pole on the planet, tracking key developments on climate and ozone depletion), as well as a raft of other closuressmokestack monitoring, climate adaptation research and all the work of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. The government’s only advisory body on sustainable development, the National Round Table on Environment and Economy, has also been killed.

The argument that these cuts are necessary as a matter of fiscal austerity would be more plausible if not for the reality that these cuts, cumulatively, come to less than the Harper Conservatives continue to spend on ads touting their wonderful record. Throw in the $28-million spent this year on celebrations of the bicentenary of the War of 1812, the $5-million for the 100th year of the Calgary Stampede, and another $5-million for the 100th year of the Grey Cup, and it is hard to see the elimination of scientific capacity as anything other than a pre-emptive strike against evidence.

The most dramatic proof that the only driving force of Harper’s policy is oil sands growth comes from his 180-turn on foreign policy in relation to China. When he first became Prime Minister, he was overtly frosty towards the Peoples’ Republic of China. Although I applauded his focus on pressing China on human rights, the snubbing of China was too extreme and undermined our diplomacy. Now, Stephen Harper visits China regularly, and craves the audience and photo ops with leaders he once avoided, like the now disgraced Bo Xilai. In fact, the last picture of Bo Xilai taken before his criminal charges was with Harper.

What could explain this about-face? It is the realization that there is simply not enough free market capital flowing into the oil sands. To meet the ambitious growth target (not of the industry, but of the Prime Minister), investment from China is needed. To secure that investment, concerns about human rights in China, indeed for Canadian sovereignty and national security are getting short shrift.

Tabled in the House on Sept. 26, with no debate planned, no committee review and no vote, is the Canada-China Investment Treaty. Under Foreign Affairs rules of procedure, the treaty could be ratified by order in council as soon as Nov. 2. It will bind Canada for a minimum of 15 years. If a future government wished to withdraw, a one year’s written notice is required, but any Chinese state-owned enterprises already invested in Canada receive a further 15 years benefits. What are the benefits?

Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) will be able to launch claims for compensation if actions at the municipal, provincial or federal levels reduce their expectation of profits. These claims will first go to six-month secret diplomatic negotiations between China and Canada. If this fails, there will be a secret arbitration with three arbitrators in a hotel room somewhere deciding whether Canada’s laws or regulations have been “arbitrary.” From these rulings, there will be no appeal. Moreover, if Canada (or any level of government) wants to conserve resources, we can only do so to the extent we limit our own use of natural resources.

In short, the Prime Minister’s goal of six million barrels of oil a day from the oil sands is driving our foreign policy, our trade policy, has undermined our global climate commitments, is eviscerating our scientific capacity and is skewing our economy to one product at the expense of others. What no one seems to know is why our Prime Minister has more ambitious growth targets for the oil sands than those in the oil patch and why he has set a pace that no one can explain or defend.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Party.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Why does Harper have more ambitious growth targets for the oil sands than those in the oil patch? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Peter Kent’s timing, the Friday of the August long weekend, to make public the new timelines for the panel’s work is further evidence of the disrespect shown to public concerns,”  said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “Clearly, Prime Minister Harper is driving forward and does not want to take the opinions of Canadians into consideration as he pushes his oil-uber-alles agenda.”
There is also a new memorandum of agreement between the Ministry of Environment and the National Energy Board stating that the Governor in Council – the avidly pro-pipeline Conservative Cabinet – will make the final decision on the NEB’s environmental assessment.

“Just as the Conservatives gutted the Fisheries Act and repealed the environmental assessment act, replacing it with a weak and watered down law, clearing the way for environmentally damaging pipelines and risky supertankers, they also used the omnibus budget bill C-38 to gut the Review Panel,” May noted.  “How can the Panel conduct an objective inquiry and gather all the facts comprehensively with the reality of deadlines and with the Cabinet ready to reverse any decision running counter to the oil industry’s wishes? The imposition of this deadline and process further makes it clear that the views of the British Columbia Government will be irrelevant to the prime minister.”

Once the Cabinet approves the Northern Gateway project, the NEB has been instructed to issue the approval certificate within seven days – proof that the Harper Conservatives intend to fast-track the Northern Gateway pipeline project.  This, of course, also means that mega-tankers would soon be navigating the treacherous waters near Kitimat, BC, as they ship Canada’s unrefined bitumen – and potential jobs – from the oil sands to China.

Revisions to a memorandum of agreement between the Ministry of Environment and the National Energy Board make other legal changes needed to bring the former agreement into compliance with C-38 new version of environmental assessment law.  These include a section that appears to blame the environment – an ‘Act of God” – for any problems the precarious Northern Gateway pipeline might face.
“Mr. Harper’s lack of respect for our democratic process, our laws, the provincial government, First Nations and our environment grows more obvious every day.  Not only is he curtailing the environmental assessment, but he plans to wash his hands of any future liabilities.  The whole scenario is almost beyond belief.”

The post Long August Weekend covers new Harper deadline appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, Mary Gorman, Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition, Dr. Lindy Weilgart, Research Associate in Biology at Dalhousie University and an expert in seismic impacts on marine life, and Dr. Thomas Duck, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, also called on Canadians and regional provincial governments to join them in stopping the Harper Conservatives’ aggressive extraction agenda in the Gulf.

“We need as many concerned Canadians as possible and their provincial representatives to join us in our call for an exploration moratorium in the Gulf of St. Lawrence” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper has just spent the past few months pushing through his pro-oil budget and omnibus Bill C-38, and now he thinks nothing can stop him. We have to demonstrate that’s just not the case.”

The elimination of federal regulations for offshore development are likely to have dire consequences for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a highly sensitive ecosystem with over 2,000 marine species that spawn, nurse, and migrate year around, including lobster, herring, snow crab, mackerel, tuna, endangered blue and right whales, leatherback turtle, and harlequin ducks.

Environmental assessments for exploratory drilling, which can be as dangerous as production drilling, were eliminated in the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) introduced in Bill C-38. It should be recognized that the largest oil spill in American history, the BP Macondo Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, was an exploratory well.

Environmental assessments of seismic blasting were also eliminated. “Marine mammals and fish are highly impacted by seismic surveys. Whales can strand and die, often bleeding from their eyes; dolphins can go rigid, catatonic, and drown, and the hearing cells in fish can be ripped apart. To carry out this destruction in as productive and biologically rich an area as the Gulf is madness,” Dr. Lindy Weilgart warned.

The Harper Conservatives are eliminating environmental regulations and protections to fast-track offshore drilling in spite of the fact that the Gulf provides a renewable global and regional food source, generating a thriving fishery – including Mi’kmaq and Acadian fishers – which, together with the tourism industry, is worth one billion dollars and creates approximately 50,000 related jobs. At the same time, the Harper Conservatives have not amended the current industry liability limit which now stands at 40 million – nothing compared to the billions BP has spent in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf has unique characteristics making exploration and extraction particularly risky. It is a partially landlocked, inland sea with strong, counter-clockwise, tidal currents that only empty into the Atlantic once a year. There is no feasible way to clean up an oil spill because the Gulf is one of the windiest regions in North America. Due to the currents, one oil spill could damage five provincial coastlines (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Newfoundland).

“As coastal landowners, we feel betrayed and abandoned by our governments who are gambling recklessly with everything we have worked for our entire lives – our property values and net worth along with our Gulf’s pristine beauty, recreational pleasures and unique maritime culture,” stated Mary Gorman.

“I would like to formally welcome Prime Minister Harper to the 21st century and advise him that humans are not the only species on the planet. It is long past time to shuck off this anthropogenic attitude of superiority and mastery and learn a small lesson in humility. It is good for the soul. While the rest of the world is embracing change, our government is clinging to 20th century philosophies and business models. This may have been acceptable in the 1950s, but we have moved on. We urge the Canadian government to do the same,” said John Percy, Leader of the Nova Scotia Green Party.

This aggressive extraction agenda is taking place as the government’s ability to monitor negative impacts has been greatly weakened. Professor Thomas Duck highlighted the ongoing reduction of scientific capacity at Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

“Sound policy is informed by science, yet the Harper Conservatives have dismantled much of our capacity to monitor the impact of fossil fuel exploration and development. The elimination of scientific assessments and oversight — indeed, the whole of Harper’s war on evidence — puts the health and safety of Canadians and their environment at considerable risk.”

The post Greens, Coalition, and Scientists Demand Exploration Halt in Gulf appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I will be very brief as I know time is running out on this debate.

Today, over 120 environmental lawyers from across Canada issued a statement warning that the destruction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act through Bill C-38 would cause more delays, more uncertainty, and more court challenges.

I want to draw the attention of members to what good environmental assessment has done over the years. The fact is it is a tool for planning.

If it had not been for an environmental assessment that allowed the cumulative effects of the Honshu Paper-Mitsubishi plant in northern Alberta called Alpac to be studied, that huge multinational factory would not have decided on its own to offer to improve its environmental regime during the process. The same thing happened with Louisiana Pacific in Saskatchewan with its oriented strandboard plant.

With this current bill, we will have more pollution, more environmental devastation. We will lack the tools to plan and prepare for projects that mitigate their environmental effects.

Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks.

When it comes right down to it, yes, we need this information, this knowledge and these data. How are we supposed to plan and make responsible decisions when we do not have any data or expertise in the field? If we want to plan for the future, if we want to have a prosperous economy in the future, we need such expertise and data.

The post Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38) appeared first on Elizabeth May.