Debate has been about how best to export raw, virtually unprocessed bitumen — as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the eastern half of Canada depends on imports of foreign oil from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Norway. As Gordon Laxer of the Parkland Institute tried to point out to a Parliamentary committee (before the Conservative chair ordered him to stop talking and stormed out of the room), Canada has no energy security.

I feel some responsibility for this shift in debate, as I was the first political leader to point out that there was something wrong with the picture.

RELATED: Sign the petition for an oil-free coast.

Unlike the US, we have no Strategic Petroleum Reserves. If there was a blockade of foreign oil or an economic embargo, those in Eastern Canada would have to wait for tankers to bring them bitumen for processing through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard. As bizarre as that sounds, it was the solution offered by a Suncor executive when asked in committee about the vulnerability of eastern Canada to embargos.

Oppositional Canada

The irony is that the dividing line of foreign oil to the east and Alberta oil for the west was the result of deliberate government policy—aimed at helping the Alberta oil and gas sector. Back in 1961, the National Oil Policy decreed that eastern Canadians (east of the Ottawa River) would only receive imported oil while those in the West had to purchase Alberta product. By deliberate policy, Eastern Canadians became dependent on foreign oil, while Alberta oil was consumed by those in western provinces and exported to the US. Now it is time to think like a country.

The Solution: Shipping East?

However, the current proposal also makes no sense. Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna has proposed shipping unprocessed bitumen to St John, New Brunswick, to put it in tankers to export it from there. Others are proposing refining it in New Brunswick.

The first decision point is Enbridge’s application to reverse its Number 9 pipeline. This pipeline was built in the 1970s and had originally flowed west to east. It was reversed in the 1990s as the markets favoured cheaper foreign oil.

Now, Enbridge is applying to reverse it once again, running a different product, dilbit, from west to east. The request to the National Energy Board is being considered in two stand-alone applications; Line 9A (Sarnia to North Westover) and Line 9B to Montreal.

From there the bitumen would likely go south through New England. When I was in Washington DC, I heard from quite a few Congressmen and Senators that they do not want those pipelines over their territory.

Bitumen

The nature of bitumen and diluents in pipelines is a critical issue in why the Green Party oppose pipelines of unprocessed product to either coastline. So, before talking about the direction of pipelines, we need to talk about the product.

Even after the extensive and intensive process of extracting the viscous material known as bitumen from the soil in which it is found (generally about 10% by volume), it is still not processed to even the level of crude oil. Crude oil can flow. Bitumen cannot. It has the consistency of peanut butter, so needs to be mixed with something else to flow. That something else is called ‘diluent’—a mix of undisclosed chemicals. The most commonly used diluent is a natural gas condensate, similar to Naptha. The public does not know the make-up of any particular diluent. Some have more benzene than others—benzene is a well-documented carcinogen.

The resulting so-called dilbit product is about 30% diluents and 70% bitumen. We do know a lot more about dilbit than we used to. And we did a lot of that learning through the 2010 Enbridge dilbit spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. We know it both floats and sinks; that it is far harder and far more expensive to clean-up than unprocessed conventional crude. The Kalamazoo spill is still not cleaned up.

Meanwhile a debate rages about whether dilbit is more likely to cause pipeline failure. Cornell University found that between 2007 and 2010 pipelines carrying dilbit had a spill-rate three times higher than pipelines carrying conventional crude. Oil sands products have a higher sulfur and a higher acidic content than conventional crude and those properties could explain its increased corrosive nature.

This finding led to the Department of Natural Resources to commissioning a study by a group called Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (ATIF). That study compared dilbit and conventional crudes and concluded the types of corrosive compounds between the two products were comparable. So we have labwork versus the real life rate of spills in US pipelines. At the moment, despite what Harper’s Cabinet ministers claim, the science on the corrosive nature of dilbit is not settled.

Meanwhile, if local residents along the Number 9 pipeline wish to speak before the NEB hearings, or even submit a letter, they are required to fill out a 10-page form, and are also encouraged to submit references and a resume! This is an NEB effort to meet the new requirements imposed by the horrific overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that took place last year in the Omnibus Budget Bill (C-38).

Unlike the previous CEAA, which was premised on a fundamental commitment to rights of public participation, the Harperized CEAA restricts access to only those ‘directly affected’. The NEB has made this restriction even worse by demanding that any citizens who want to make comments, fill out the forms and apply within a two-week period—which will close before this article will be in print.

Refineries In Alberta

So, what should be done? The best environmental, economic and climate outcome would be to slow down the boom-and-bust cycle of constant expansion in the oil sands. What the late Peter Lougheed used to describe as the ‘traffic jam’ of feverish expansion in the oilsands prevents the construction of ancillary infrastructure, like upgraders and refineries.

The hyper-inflationary bubble that sits on northern Alberta is what makes it cheaper for Big Oil to build a $7 billion pipeline to Texas, rather than build facilities in Alberta. Any reasonable carbon plan would set a level of managed growth for oil sands production—say 2 million barrels of oil a day (more than the current 1.7 million barrels, but less than Harper’s goal of 6 million barrels of oil a day). That level of production could cool down the capital and labour markets enough to build upgraders and refineries near the resource. Then, we could be talking about shipping—by pipeline, truck or train—a finished product whose properties are better understood. Shipping a product with a far lower risk of environmental impact in the event of spills.

If we are thinking like a country, we should get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, but we should not ship bitumen + diluents.

The post Pipelines to the east? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Wednesday, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB), an offshore-extraction regulatory agency, issued a “Call for Nomination” for Newfoundland ‘s section of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, giving oil companies until October 15 to express their interest in exploring and exploiting parcels of the Gulf.

Incredibly, this is being done before the C-NLOPB has conducted its promised Western Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to determine if it is appropriate to proceed with oil and gas development in Newfoundland ’s Gulf waters.

Meanwhile, today is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) deadline for arguments against the elimination of oil and gas exploration activities as “designated projects” prescribed by the CEAA’s Regulations Designating Physical Activities.

“As Harper promotes extraction industries across Canada ’s north, concerted efforts are being made to push the same thing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence while Canadians aren’t looking,” Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “At the same time, there’s today’s little-known deadline for saving assessments for destructive exploration processes.  From coast to coast to coast, this is a recipe for environmental disaster.”

The Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition has written to Max Ruelokke, Chairman of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, to express its shock and concern that the C-NLOPB would issue its Call for Nominations, especially before the Western Newfoundland SEA has even begun.

“The Board seems to be in complete denial regarding the damage seismic surveys, exploratory drilling, and offshore oil and gas development cause, especially to marine ecosystems,” said Mary Gorman, Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition.  “If the C-NLOPB isn’t prepared to assume a legitimate, precautionary and ecosystem approach as the alleged ‘regulator’ for safety and environment in our Gulf’s waters, then we should look into changing its mandate so that a genuine regulator can emerge.”

The International Ocean Noise Coalition (IONC) has written to John McCauley, Director, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, on behalf of more than 150 international non-governmental organizations concerned about the impacts of ocean-noise pollution (ONP) on marine ecosystems and their living resources.

“We urge you to include oil and gas exploration activities, including seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, as ‘designated projects’ prescribed by the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (CEAA 2012). To exclude these potentially damaging practices from environmental assessment would conflict with growing scientific evidence, as well as what is becoming standard practice by an increasing number of nations and inter-governmental organizations.

“Most scientists today recommend ecosystem-based management (EBM). The Canadian government has repeatedly expressed its support for an adoption of EBM, but it appears not to consider it when it comes to environmental assessments, particularly for seismic surveys.”

“Increasingly, with Canada’s offshore and other extraction processes, everything is open to development until citizens rise up to protect areas they hold dear,” concluded May.

The post Reckless Promotion of Maritime Offshore Drilling Opposed appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It can be a useful opportunity.  The NDP opted for Defence and Environment and the time for the meetings was duly scheduled by the Conservatives.  As customary, the Committee of the Whole (COW) begins when the daily business of the House is over.  The Conservatives chose the week the environment committee was out on the road, holding meetings across Canada, to have the Environment COW and then scheduled late votes both nights.  Earlier that day it was announced that last night would be the cut-off on Copyright legislation, Bill C-11.  I had many amendments to attempt removing the most onerous digital locks sections of the Copyright bill. Thanks to support from the Liberals as seconders and in forcing votes, we were able to force recorded votes.  Only once all substantive amendments had been defeated did I ask to compress the voting process to “Apply the vote,” cutting about an hour and a half off our voting time.  Still, COW did not start until about 9:30 pm and ran for four hours til 1:30 am. I attended both and wondered why anyone thought this could be useful.

True, departmental officials were available.  In each case a small table was placed at about the spot where the Prime Minister usually sits (although he was not there), and at the table top ranking officials sit in case their expertise and background is needed to answer questions.  I want to try to paint the picture of the table, one side pressed against the government bench.  In close formation, one on each of the three open sides of the table, sit the highest ranking officials.  Sitting like statues, facing each other.  True, General Walter Natynczyk had the best ram-rod like posture.  Staring straight ahead at the Defence Deputy Minister Rob Fonberg at a distance of a few feet.  The same formation for the Environment Deputy, Paul Booth, only he stared straight at Peter Kent, in the front row of government benches, flanked by the head of Parks Canada Paul Latourelle and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency head Elaine Feldman.  What must have been going through their minds? In four hours of Defence and four hours of Environment, they never spoke.  Why were they there?  Maybe that’s what they were thinking: why am I here? 

Certainly not to help Peter MacKay or Julian Fantino answer a simple question from Liberal John McKay who asked (three times? four times?) if anyone knew the cost per hour of the Department’s current jets, the F-18s.  And the only person rustling through papers to provide answers to Peter Kent was Michelle Rempel, his Parliamentary Secretary.  And, really, when nearly every answer was like a Chinese menu, why did anyone need to be there to help with answers?

Menu options for Peter Kent:

Option A: If asked anything by an NDP MP, answer with some variation of how bad bad bad the leader of the Official Opposition was to call the oil sands a disease;

Option B: If asked anything by a Liberal MP,  say “we will never ever ever bring in a carbon tax;”

Option C: If asked by a Conservative backbencher, for extra measure one MP actually bothered to read from the script and ask Peter Kent, “will you ever bring in a carbon tax?”  Answer: We will never ever ever bring in a carbon tax, unlike those bad bad bad Liberals. 

So was there anything new?

Well, last night Peter Kent said some unbelievable things.   For one, when Megan Leslie asked if the government planned to allow Opposition Members on the delegation to the Rio plus 20 conference this June, he said “no” (that was the believable part). And then he said, for the Durban climate conference, the government had offered assistance to the two Opposition MPs who attended. He claimed that while not actually providing credentials as part of the Canadian delegation, the government helped with getting the Opposition MPs into the UN FCCC Conference of the Parties in Durban.  Well, that description only applies to two people: me and NDP MP Laurin Liu.  I tried to help Laurin.  She had a whole day in Durban without being able to get into the conference centre at all. The NGO Climate Action Network finally succeeded in begging the UN Secretariat to grant her a badge with them. I asked her last night if she had had any offer of help from the “official” delegation that I didn’t know about. Nope. 

I know for a fact I was never offered any help.  And I know I never saw any help.  Since I was granted credentials as an advisor to the Government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and they never had any request from Canada, the whole claim was as unnecessary as it was invented.   (Fun to imagine the conversation as a senior Canadian diplomat rings up his counter-part in PNG, “We have the Leader of the Green Party, you know. And it’s kind of awkward because we are not going to allow Canadian MPs on our delegation, unless they are Conservatives, so we aren’t paying her way or helping her find a hotel, and frankly, we feel pretty lousy about it, but it would be just aces if you could accept her on your delegation.” Not.)

There was also the claim, not once but twice, that the contaminated sites programme was a Harper Conservative initiative: “Our government invested $3.5 billion”. Twice, they said it.  Even though the $3.5 billion was put in place in 2005 by Paul Martin’s government to remediate contaminated sites on federal land.  At the time they thought there were a total of 8,500 sites.  Now, with half the money gone and 40% of the sites remediated, they realize the total is 22,000 sites.  So the Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan reported that a plan is needed.  More to the “unbelievably score card,” when Liberal Kirsty Duncan asked about the Commissioner’s report, Kent managed to insult both her and Scott Vaughan (and here I paraphrase) “The hon. member is as confused as the Environment Commissioner.”  She pressed to find out if he accepted the commissioner’s report. Nope. Not really. On toxics, Vaughan was confused. On climate, well, the poor man is obviously out of his depth.  Used out of date data sets. 

To both Liberal and NDP environment critics wanting to see plans for climate or toxic sites, Kent delivered a paternalistic, “the hon. members should be patient.”

Perhaps most unbelievable was Kent confusing the goal, to which Stephen Harper affixed his signature in Copenhagen (in the non-binding Copenhagen Accord) to avoid allowing global average temperature from reaching 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.  Kirsty Duncan prefaced a question noting that the “window is closing” on our ability to avoid a global average temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius. Kent looked at me as he said, (not yet recognized by the chair) “it’s closed.”   And then he rose and said the temperature in our Arctic has already risen above 2 degrees Celsius.

He said the same thing to me in Durban and I had explained that Arctic temperature increases are not the same thing as a global average temperature increase. The poles warm more rapidly than any other part of the planet.  The reason scientists are warning that we must avoid 2 degrees Celsius global average temperature increase is because that is a level of serious danger. It will be too late for low-lying island states at 2 degrees global average temperature.  That is why scientists and African nations rally around the slogan “1.5 to stay alive.”  Going beyond a 2 degree global average temperature increase is catastrophic.  The Minister of Environment doesn’t know the difference.  Kirsty Duncan explained the difference.  She is both a Liberal MP and a scientist. She worked on the IPCC. When she had clarified the science for the minister, she let out a sad sigh. It carried on her mic.  And Peter Van Loan and Peter Kent and Michelle Rempel all found that a hilarious moment.  And they all laughed uproariously. I wish I had found that more unbelievable.

The post Theatre of the Absurd 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.

“It makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment?  The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians,” said May.

The June 3rd Speech from the Throne stated, “Our Government is committed to developing Canada’s extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

CEAA will be reduced to one third of the number of full time staff and two entire programs will be eliminated, one on improving the regulatory framework around major projects and the other on consulting aboriginal groups.

“At a time when we should be extremely careful to not adversely affect our biodiversity, our water, and our air quality, we are instead moving backward and hamstringing the one agency that has the environment as the top priority,” said May.  “These cuts once again highlight the anti-environment ideology of the Harper government.  To add to the insult, CEAA will now be incapable of consulting with aboriginal groups in a meaningful manner.”

The post CEAA cuts provoke outrage appeared first on Elizabeth May.