As a New Year’s Resolution, I knew it was a long-shot—but so are many New Year’s Resolutions. So, like most of us this New Year, I will re-commit to some unfulfilled 2012 resolutions — including seeing Stephen Harper leave office (one way or another) within 2013.

Crystal-ball gazing is notoriously prone to failure, but let me make some likely predictions. Within the continuing attack in the House of Commons against the fabric of Canadian criminal law, we will see more bills that assault Charter rights through a ‘tough on crime’ agenda. The Conservatives are bound to return to the internet snooping bill, C-30, famously described by Vic Toews as representing a choice of standing with the Conservatives or standing on the side of child pornographers.

Up early in February will be C-43, titled the act for the ‘faster removal of foreign criminals act’ but which, actually, can limit access to Canada to people who are not criminals at all. The bill gives the Minister of Immigration the right to deny a claimant permanent residency in Canada for ‘public policy reasons,’ a term which is undefined.

We will see the last significant environmental law (at least among those that have an impact on land-use and conservation) being dismantled. The Species at Risk Act (SARA) was rumoured to have been planned to be in the fall omnibus bill, C-45. The Hill gossip is that the provinces were not willing to see the act being downloaded to the provinces as rapidly as was being proposed. Environment Minister Peter Kent has said to expect the overhaul of SARA as stand-alone legislation.

It won’t be too early to start seeing the impacts of the egregious changes from 2012. The new and pathetic excuse for an environmental assessment act is so badly drafted that even industry is bound to start complaining. And the destruction of the Fisheries Act in relation to protection of fish habitat could well be the subject of litigation, especially due to the impacts on First Nations rights.

Another potential area of litigation could be First Nations push back against the Canada-China Investment Treaty. I keep hoping that a case can be brought for injunctive relief to block ratification while there is still time. As I write this, the treaty is not yet ratified. The Prime Minister can legally ratify at any time he convenes a Cabinet meeting. We need to keep the pressure up, particularly on Conservative MPs, to urge them to pressure the Prime Minister to, at a minimum, reject the treaty with language that locks us in for 31 years. We should insist that, at least, the exit provisions match NAFTA, with a 6-month opt-out provision.

By December, the Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, or as I like to call it, ‘The Great Pipeline of China’ will report. Thanks to changes in C-38, the National Energy Board is no longer the decision-maker. The NEB will make a recommendation based on the Joint Review Panel report. Then, Prime Minister Harper’s Cabinet will rule. Despite all the opposition, and the clear climb-down on rhetoric from the PM and his Cabinet members in the last year, it will be a surprise if the project is turned down. We will stop it from being built, somehow, but we cannot afford to assume the fight is already won.

Beyond the legislative agenda, we are likely to experience within Canada and globally, more extreme weather events due to human-induced climate change. I am convinced another year cannot go by without people around the world, urged on by the world’s scientists, making the links and demanding governments take action. We need to become more active, more assertive in making the case that the changes we are seeing now are dangerous, and that we are only seeing the tip of a very large (and melting) iceberg.

No doubt we will experience heartbreaks (I cannot speak of what happened to little children in Newtown, Connecticut). We can never anticipate exactly how the military industrial complex will make its greed and Machiavellian machinations felt in a troubled world. We will have moments that bring us great joy, worry about things that in the scheme of things do not matter much, and love and lose loves, as in every year. The world did not end in 2012 and perhaps human consciousness will evolve.

Perhaps, from our beautiful islands—big and small—off the west coast of British Columbia, just perhaps, our work for change will lead the way. All the best to us all in this new year.

The post What will 2013 hold for Canada? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[eHy_9N8luZA]

I want to first make a few comments on the subject of omnibus bills and what we have seen in this one year. We essentially have seen budget 2012 used as an excuse for the tabling of 900 pages of legislation largely unrelated to the budget itself. This exercise is both illegitimate and undemocratic in combining 70 different bills in Bill C-38, allegedly related to budget 2012, and now 60 different bills in Bill C-45.

I have fewer amendments today than I had tabled for Bill C-38 and Canadians might want to know the difference. Bill C-38, while a couple of pages shorter, did far more damage to the fabric of environmental laws in Canada. Bill C-38 took an axe to our Fisheries Act, destroying habitat protections; , repealed the Environmental Assessment Act; and put in place a substitute piece of legislation that would be an embarrassment to a developing country. It was absolutely abominable.

In Bill C-38, we also saw the explicit removal of pipelines as a category of obstruction under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I would have thought that the Conservative agenda toward pipelines was satisfied with Bill C-38, but we go on to Bill C-45 and see that the attack on environmental laws includes the evisceration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In Bill C-38, I made the case, as members may recall, to ask the Speaker for a ruling that the bill was out of order and not properly put together. I think we need to revisit the rules and to create some rules t around omnibus bills because this is clearly illegitimate.

In Bill C-45, we have proof of how appalling the process was in Bill C-38 in that some of what we are voting on this week are remedies for errors made in the drafting of Bill C-38. These were obvious errors that could have been caught if the normal legislative process had taken place.

Now we are asked, in Bill C-45, to correct drafting errors made in Bill C-38 where the English does not accord with the French, or where, under the Fisheries Act, they forgot to protect certain aspects of navigation through the fisheries corridors where there are weirs and other fishing apparatus. We also have changes to the Environmental Assessment Act because of poor drafting the last time around. Why was the drafting poor? It was because 70 different laws were put together in one piece of legislation and forced through the House without a willingness to accept, in 425 pages of legislation, a single amendment.

This is not proper parliamentary process. No previous Privy Council in the history of this country has ever equated an amendment to a bill between first reading and royal assent as some sort of political defeat that must be avoided at all costs. This is a level of parliamentary partisanship that takes leave of its senses. It is essentially a form of parliamentary insanity for the government to decide that it cannot possibly accept an amendment from first reading to royal assent and then to come back and give us this which finally provides some of the corrections.

I will speak to my amendments relatively quickly. I want to stress that neither Bill C-38 nor Bill C-45 are really about jobs, or growth or the budget. I will highlight the things in Bill C-45 that I hope to amend because they will hurt jobs.

Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bill, would hurt jobs in tourism through this quite extraordinary proposal, which is not a proposal but will be passed into law unless we are able to persuade Conservative members of Parliament that they should vote for what they think is right and not how they are told, ordered and instructed to vote.

When tourism in this country is such an important part of our economy, it makes no sense to pass into law a requirement that tourists from around the world, from countries that do not currently require a visa to come to Canada, regardless of whether they have any aspersions on their character, whether they are considered to be a risk, every tourist to Canada, except those from the United States because of our agreements over a shared border security process, would need to fill out a form to find out if they are allowed to come here for a vacation. This is a terrible change and it would significantly hurt tourism.

Another terrible change is reducing the tax credit, the SR and ED, the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. This is where Canada lags. If we listen to the economists, there is tremendous concern about our competitiveness and productivity, which is directly related to research and development, and to why we need to have the scientific research and experimental development tax credit available to Canadians. We think it would be a big mistake to reduce that.

I will now talk about what I like in Bill C-45. The assumption is that every opposition member hates everything in Bill C-45. That is one of the reasons I object to omnibus bills. There are measures here that I would vote for were they not coupled together with so much destruction. I would vote for the actual budgetary measures that one finds at the beginning of Bill C-45, the tax credits to encourage investment in clean energy and energy efficiency. They are too small but I am certainly not against them. Rather, I am for them.

I would vote for the closing of some of the tax credits to encourage oil and gas development, such as the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining, and for the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit. I would also vote for the closing of the loopholes in transfer pricing and foreign affiliate dumping that have been used by corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Those are the measures I would vote for.

What deeply disturbs me in this bill, in addition to the measure that I had mentioned to create a new requirement for filling out a form to come to Canada under immigration, is the elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. My amendments would keep that commission in place.

As well, we could do more with the hiring credit for small business.

The changes to the Fisheries Act are largely to repair mistakes made by the Conservatives to the Fisheries Act that had weakened it. They are now fixing some of what they did not need to weaken so desperately. However, we have suggested an amendment to allow for the definition of “aboriginal fisheries”, on the basis of first nations advice, to ensure that the definition is fully respected and takes into account the constitutional and treaty rights of first nations in any definition of “aboriginal fisheries”.

Before moving on to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I wish to speak to the Canada Grain Act. My amendments oppose a move to take away the independent bond actors in terms of looking at Canadian grains. The third party inspection that is now being proposed would create a conflict of interest between the private sector and the grain companies. We think that would be a mistake. We have certainly learned from the XL Foods beef scandal that it is important to ensure that inspections are truly independent.

The bulk of my amendments deal with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Conservatives have taken three runs at it through three different omnibus bills, the first being in 2009. The objective definition of what is “navigable” was changed to a discretionary definition wherein “navigable” would mean whatever the Minister of Transport says that it means.

In Bill C-38, just this past spring, the Conservatives took another run at the Navigable Waters Protection Act with the specific exclusion of pipelines as works or undertakings. Pipelines are no longer in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These new amendments are certainly not about pipelines because the Conservatives took care of that in Bill C-38.

What this does is it takes an act that we have had since 1882 that directly comes from the Constitution of this country, that being the federal responsibility for navigation. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was brought in by Sir John A. Macdonald, has protected the rights of Canadians to put a canoe or kayak in any body of water and paddle from there to wherever they want to go. As Canadians, we have a right to navigation. This is now being superseded with the false story that there is somehow a burdensome regulatory amount of red tape that offends people in municipalities. Therefore, we need to blow apart the Navigable Waters Protection Act to say that a body of water is only navigable if it can be found in the schedule at the back of the act. Ironically, the 99.5% of Canadian waters that are not listed there are not ones near municipalities, cottages and people who want to build wharfs, but are in our wilderness areas where, without the Navigable Waters Protection Act, nothing stands in the way of obstructions to navigations for Canadians.

The government will tell us that is all right because Canadians have a common law right. If people have a couple of hundred thousand dollars and are prepared to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to defend their right to use a waterway that is not listed, they can do that. However, this is an egregious abdication of responsibility for a federal head of power that no other level of government has the right to step up and fill the void.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to give due consideration to these serious and important amendments.

The post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) 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.

Has my friend considered that this act is actually unconstitutional in retreating from 98% of the responsibilities to ensure that Canadians have the right to navigate? This was enshrined as a federal head of power. How can the Conservatives unilaterally walk away from it, knowing that under the exclusivity principles of the constitutional law it would be illegal for another level of government to step in to fill the void?

Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting point. There was an article in Le Devoir last week about how there are laws at the provincial level, for example in Quebec, to protect the interests of boaters and so on, but in fact constitutionally they do not have the same authority. It is disturbing when a government takes away rights for Canadians that were established at the very beginning of Confederation without having any kind of public debate, other than on a budget bill.

I think this is a problem. I will leave it up to those who are more knowledgeable about the law than I am to delve into this issue, but it obviously merits discussion.

The post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) 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.

Once the video was on Youtube, and subsequently discussed on every TV news show, Wilks’ website posted a statement of complete support for C-38.

The rally, amazingly well attended, was a boost to us as we went back into the House. It was the last time I saw daylight until Friday morning. The rally’s placards called for ‘13 heroes.’ If the search for heroes is defined by Conservative MPs voting for C-38 amendments, then there are none in Ottawa. However, that is not the case.

David Wilks was attacked in the media for caving, for failing to challenge the Prime Minister directly, despite his clear integrity and unhappiness with the ‘system.’ His statements, despite capitulation and retraction, constituted a kind of heroism in a system where everyone seems to be afraid of earning the Prime Minister’s wrath.

Currently, Ottawa is in the throes of oppression. Scientists are muzzled, but why don’t they defy bosses and speak out anyway? They are afraid of losing their jobs. Some in industry have told me they avoid public criticism of the Prime Minister because they have children working in the civil service. They are afraid for their children’s jobs. Reporters have been cowed by higher ups in their media corporations telling them to lay off criticizing the PM. They are afraid for their jobs (several reporters have lost their jobs for offending the PMO). Little wonder the members of Harper’s caucus are silent. They know from Helena Guergis’ experience just how painful, and complete, banishment can be.

I want to celebrate people of integrity who lost much by refusing to be silenced. Conservative MPs who stood up to the Prime Minister constitute a short list, and only one is still in the Conservative Caucus.

Former Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey stood on principle and voted against the 2008 budget due to the fact it violated the oil revenue-sharing contract called the Atlantic Accord. He was thrown from caucus. Casey is a man of integrity who paid a big price, but he is not the only one. MP Garth Turner was also thrown from the Conservative Party when he refused to stop blogging on issues that concerned him in 2007.

Sometimes bravery in the Conservative ranks comes from refusing to vote. Albertan James Rajotte, and Ontario MPs Royale Galipeau and Pat Davidson refused to stand with their colleagues to vote that asbestos is safe. Braver to be in the room and refuse to vote, than avoid voting by not being in the House – as a number of Conservatives did.

Speaking out against Harper’s agenda is difficult even for retired MPs. Full marks to the two Progressive Conservative Fisheries Ministers Tom Siddon and John Fraser. They signed the joint letter, with Liberal former ministers Herb Dhaliwal and David Anderson, condemning the gutting of the Fisheries Act in C-38. Former Conservative MP Bob Mills, of Red Deer, was heroic agreeing to speak out to denounce the loss of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy in a press conference I organized against C-38.

The very brave are those who stood on principle to support good public policy only to be fired, forced to quit or have careers stall. The following is a partial list, a brief reminder of people who continue to live without the jobs and careers they deserve.

• The former Deputy Minister of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, who resigned on principle one year ago when his Minister, Tony Clement, claimed that no one in the bureaucracy had warned him that cancelling the Long Form Census would be a huge mistake. He had warned the Minister and he could not live with the lie.
• Linda Keen, former head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, fired for insisting on nuclear safety upgrades at Chalk River.
• Richard Colvin, the diplomat who testified to the violations of international law in the transfer of Afghan detainees. He was berated as a Taliban stooge by the Conservatives.
• Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has found that merely doing his job–providing fiscal updates to Parliamentarians–has earned the PM’s wrath. He announced that he will not stay on beyond his first term.

Meanwhile, he has warned the Prime Minister that he will go to court to force release of budgetary information he believes Parliamentarians need, unless it is released before the House resumes

The Search Goes On

So many people in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and on the Coast in general, are active and engaged. With what remains of the summer, can you contact a friend or relative living in a Conservative-held riding?

Stephen Harper is planning a second omnibus bill to implement Budget 2012 for the fall. We need to urge Conservative Members of Parliament to push back and refuse to support a repeat version of C-38. We need more heroes.

The post The Search for Heroes appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Canada undermined global climate negotiations in Durban in December, negotiated in bad faith, and immediately announced intent to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol when the Environment Minister touched down on Canadian soil. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver kicked off the New Year with an assault on environmentalists and First Nations as “radicals.”  The Prime Minister attacked environmental groups for accepting foreign funding, even as he courted Communist Party controlled state operations from China as investors in the oil sands.  One Parliamentary Secretary said anyone opposed to pipelines and tankers was “against Canada.”  When asked to withdraw the remark as un-parliamentary, she refused.

The legislative juggernaut, C-38, repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, replacing a coherent piece of legislation with a discretionary formula for confusion, conflict and court cases.  The gutting of the Fisheries Act raised the ire of four former federal Ministers of Fisheries.  Environment Minister Peter Kent insulted the four former ministers, suggesting they had not read the Act.  Mulroney era Minister Tom Siddon showed up to testify before the sub-committee on Finance and in short order made it clear he may be the only Minister who has read the act.  While Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield tried to claim the new Fisheries Act will improve habitat protection, the assault to habitat is real, underscored by the subsequent lay-off notices to all DFO habitat officers in British Columbia. The National Round Table on the Environment and Economy is scrapped.  The Species at Risk Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act amended to allow the National Energy Board to assume jurisdiction of endangered species or navigable waters are in the way of any pipeline.

Basic science and monitoring is being savaged with the end of funding to the Canadian Foundation of Climate and Atmospheric Science, elimination of the Adaptation research group within Environment Canada, the cuts to ozone monitoring, the closure of the Polar Arctic and Environmental Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, the sale of the 58 lakes in the globally unique Experimental Lakes Area near Kenora, Ontario, the elimination of the marine contaminants programme within DFO, the loss of scientists in Natural Resources Canada to study ice cores data (and the hope to find a university with a large fridge willing to take the 80,000 year ice core record Canada’s government no longer wants), the end of monitoring smoke stack emissions, cut backs in the Canada Oil and Gas research group in Halifax, and cuts at NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) resulting in the closing of the Yukon Research Lab at Yukon College in Whitehorse.

The thin end of the wedge of privatization has hit National Parks – first Jasper and then the hot springs at Banff, while cuts to ecological staff in the parks compelled former Deputy Minister Jacques Gerin to call on Harper to stop gutting National Parks.

It is a blitzkrieg of bad news as cut-backs and programme cancellation hit the core areas of federal responsibility to protect nature.  The multi-faceted assault has the effect of blinding media and the public to the largest threat.  In 2012, Canada still has no plan to address the threat of climate change.

While Stephen Harper has succeeded in dramatically reducing the Canadian media coverage of climate science through the muzzling of government scientists, the atmosphere does not seem to have gotten the memo.  Around the world, the force and frequency of severe weather events has woken up even the mainstream US media.  Fires, floods, tornadoes, heat waves are wreaking havoc on agriculture and running up the bills to the insurance industry.  The culprit for much of this year’s strange weather phenomenon is the rapidly warming Arctic.  As the Arctic warms the differential in temperature between the Arctic and the Equator becomes less pronounced. That causes the jet stream to lose its straight and fast course. (Francis, Vavrus study, Rutgers/Univ of Wisconsin). Slowing down, it has allowed large low pressure systems and high pressure systems to sit for far longer periods than normal in one place —  causing flooding in the low pressure zones and heat waves and fires in the high zones.

Loss of agriculture, losses to floods and fires also cost the economy, as well as human lives. Despite the Prime Minister’s attempts to destroy the collection of data, the evidence of the climate crisis is all around us.  We are sabotaging our children’s future – but what does it matter as long as the bitumen flows?

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

First published in the Hill Times.

The post Canada still has no plan to address climate change appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The protection of wetlands is much more difficult in Canada now that the Conservatives have gutted the Fisheries Act to protect certain fish, rather than fish habitat,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “It must have been difficult for government representatives at the UN conference to hold their heads up in front of the rest of the world.”

The little-known Ramsar Convention is the only global environmental treaty that deals with a particular ecosystem.   Adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971, it provides the framework for national and international action and cooperation to conserve or wisely use wetlands and their resources. 

Wetlands include lakes and rivers, swamps, wet grasslands, peatlands, oases, deltas, mangroves, coral reefs, as well as human-made sites such as fish ponds, rice paddies, and reservoirs.

The theme of the conference was “Wetlands: home and destination,” reflecting the focus on sustainable wetland tourism and recreation.  Historically, Canada, with about 25 percent of the world’s wetlands, has provided international leadership in supporting Ramsar. 

However, with the aggressive expansion of the Alberta oil sands, for example, Canada’s wetlands, in this case peatlands, are rapidly being destroyed.  A recent study by top scientists revealed that, contrary to Conservative and oil industry promises, the peatlands, which took thousands of years to form, cannot be restored.

These unique landscapes play a key role in filtering water, feeding caribou (an increasingly endangered species in northern Alberta), storing carbon, recharging groundwater, protecting biological diversity, and providing flood protection.

May acknowledged the efforts of Canadians who support the sustainability goals of the Ramsar Convention.

“I want to recognize the hard work of Canadians who are trying to protect wetlands in Canada and around the world,” said the Green Party Leader.  “We all know that, given the political climate in Canada, it isn’t easy to stand up for the conservation and sustainability of any natural resource.”

The post Harper Conservatives’ Policies Make Mockery of International Convention to Protect Wetlands appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post 1.17 Fisheries appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Seconded by Elizabeth May February 1, 2012

Click here for the complete document.

The post Bill C-225 An Act to amend the Fisheries Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.