Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, a national transportation strategy is not new. One could probably trace it back through the last decade as one of those issues that needs to be dealt with. The Liberal Party has been advocating for it for a number of years. At the end of the day, I suspect that it is in all of our best interests.

There are opportunities in terms of passenger transportation. I would love to be able to hop on a train, for example, to go from Winnipeg to Regina. I cannot do that. Yet those are two very important communities, not only in my life but in the lives of millions, I would argue. The transportation corridor from the 905 belt to Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa all the way down to Hamilton and Windsor is a wonderful opportunity.

There needs to be that overall transportation strategy. I suspect that at least three of the four political parties are going to have a detailed strategy going into the 2015 election.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We no longer have people on board in the last car, the caboose, which used to be required under regulation, to monitor safety. I believe that the spill at Wabamun Lake, which the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona knows about very well, occurred largely due to the cutbacks of key safety positions of personnel on board freight.

It needs to be reliable and safe. We are having far too many derailments.

Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has made a series of recommendations, some of which are on staffing. Others are on the need for advanced technology to be installed in rail cars. For example, voice recording in the locomotive cab has not been done yet, even though the recommendation is eight years old.

There has been a recommendation for a positive train control system that would provide an automatic braking system. If the conductor happened to miss a light, a track or a red light stop sign, the train would stop automatically based on GPS technology. Unfortunately, that recommendation is again being ignored by the minister. The United States made it mandatory that all trains have automatic braking devices for safety, but we do not have such legislation in Canada.

Therefore, both staffing and technologies should be in place to keep train services safe.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to raise one issue with my colleague that has troubled me for a long time as an advocate for passenger rail. The member pointed out quite rightly that VIA Rail does not own its own tracks. It must get permission and lease them from freight. The increasing problem is that freight trains are getting increasingly longer, which means they can no longer use the sidings that are available. That means that passenger rail always has to go to a siding, because of shorter trains, and wait there while freight goes by. That is undermining the efficiency of passenger rail through freight.

I wonder if my colleague would have any comments.

Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, the future of transit in this country should be focused on making passenger transit more efficient. The environmental impact of that would be tremendous for Canadians. I would note too that the emission intensity of passenger rail over the last 20 years or so has improved by about 26% and there is lots of room for greater improvement for passenger rail.

It would be wonderful if there were a way to give passenger rail greater priority on the tracks, to work out some system, so that freight travel could also continue in a competitive and efficient way as well.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“These cuts to our national infrastructure will come at an economic cost.  In tourism alone, Canada will lose.  With lack of service, ridership will continue to decline.  Some communities will be stranded and, in particular, seniors may suffer lack of mobility, as the highways and airlines become the only option.  This is not a forward thinking plan,” said May.

The cuts to VIA rail come at a time of increasing public service cuts, with 1000 jobs being lost in the latest round.

Canada is the only country in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with no national transportation strategy. While Europeans have highly efficient inter-modal connectivity, with high speed rail linking downtown cores to airports, with bicycle lanes allowing people to move around cities safely, efficiently and pollution-free, with streetcars in the downtowns and even rural areas serviced by bus and rail, Canadian communities are increasingly stranded.

In much of Canada, rail routes that once moved thousands of people are abandoned. Edmonton to Calgary, Saskatoon to Regina, Halifax to Sydney have all been axed, despite their profitability.

“Yes, our rail system needs an overhaul, but the focus should be on improving efficiency of the passenger and freight systems, increasing commuter trains and shifting cargo off highways and onto freight trains.  We appear to have gone off the rails.  Instead of improving things, we are slowly losing our rail infrastructure, to the detriment of Canada,” said May.

The post Should have More Trains, Not less, say Greens appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I make the point now only to say that I think the House is moving to a place where we may have wanted to be some time ago. Members are prepared to see the bill pass. I just wanted to add my words of support for the bill. I think the House is perhaps unanimous.

I turn to my friend in the Bloc and ask him if he has any additional points.

We do need to ensure that rail safety is a priority. This is a very important bill, even if it is a housekeeping bill. I hope that, once it is passed, we can move on to look at the other issues that have come up in debate about improving access to rail, passenger rail, improving the freight lines and potentially moving Canada into the 21st century of rail travel through high-speed rail. However those are all points that go beyond the legislation before us.

Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very apt comment.

We have indeed reached a point where all parties in this House agree on passing this bill. I believe that it is important to improve safety, as my colleague mentioned. There is no doubt about it. Earlier, I alluded to apple pie. Who can be against apple pie?

We need to move on to the next step. The bill must be passed. But I wish to reiterate that it is important for the government to have a clear policy that will provide the railways, no matter where in Canada they might be located, with funds to maintain costly infrastructure, because the railways are invaluable from the environmental, sustainable development and transportation standpoints, whether we are talking about transporting goods or passengers. What is needed is a clear investment policy for the railway network across Canada.

The post Safer Railways Act (Bill S-4) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I was intrigued that the member from Davenport mentioned the fact that when one travels from Toronto to Ottawa the rail speed is never much more than if one was actually driving. Speed, though, can also be dangerous, and without adequate regulation and the automatic brake systems that we need, speed can cause derailment.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether in his view we need to substantially invest in the modernization of the railbeds so that we can bring in high-speed rail and actually live with the advantages of modern societies around the world that buy Canadian technology from Bombardier to have high-speed trains?

Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, members on the government side love to talk about how they are great fiscal managers and brilliant economic planners, but the fact of the matter is that if we look at emerging economies, they are investing in high-speed electric train technology right now.

We have the tracks laid. We need the major infrastructure investments to bring our rail transit up to speed for the 21st century.

The post Safer Railways Act (Bill S-4) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“It’s outrageous that a profitable company would ask workers to accept a 50 percent wage cut on top of cuts to benefits and pensions.  Instead of handing out billions in big corporate tax cuts, we need to support businesses creating well-paying local jobs,” said Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner, who is attending the workers’ rally with London area Greens on Saturday, January 21st. 

“Unfortunately, these London workers are experiencing first hand that corporate tax cuts do not lead to more employment,” said Green Leader May (Saanich-Gulf Islands).  “The manufacturing industry is suffering in Canada yet the Harper government simply gives out bailouts without adequately protecting Canadian jobs.”

Since 2000, corporate income taxes in Canada have been almost in half.

“Electro-Motive is Canada’s only locomotive manufacturer.  This latest crisis also reminds us of the total lack of government investment into our rail lines, putting us far behind other countries.  An improved rail system would make Canada more economically competitive and provide thousands of new jobs,” said May.

The Green Party would re-invest in our national rail systems, building more train cars in Canada, increasing train speeds and phasing in high speed rail where feasible, and creating green transportation and energy infrastructure corridors in key regions.

The post Greens in support of locked out workers appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The newspapers along the route are finally noticing that the climate is getting hostile. The Saskatoon Star Phoenix has a story “Pakistan floods, Russian heat fit climate trend around the globe: extreme weather events become more frequent: scientists,” while the Globe and Mail front page shows a dramatic image headed “Crisis in Pakistan: 13 million: The Pakistani floods have now affected more victims than the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami…”

Bill McKibben writes in Eaarth that these catalogues of global events, inventories of disaster, are how we most often describe climate impact. “The trouble with this endless collection of anecdotes,” he writes, “…is that it misses the essential flavour of the new world we’re constructing.” He calls that new world “Eaarth” in an effort to distinguish it from our old planet. The message of his book is sobering. We do not live on that old planet anymore. Everything we had taken for granted — relatively stable climate, changing over millennia, not decades — cannot be taken for granted anymore. It is not exactly the “Brave New World” of Aldous Huxley, but it is a new world and we have to be brave to figure out how to live on it. We have to be resolute in moving off fossil fuels quickly to keep the world liveable.

Maybe this summer’s round of news clippings will wake people up to the climate reality. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released data demonstrating that June 2010 was the hottest June on record — for both land and sea temperatures. If you look at NOAA’s global maps (www.westcoastclimateequity.org) you will see that our part of the world was about the only place on the planet not super-heated through June. June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. NOAA data put the first decade of the new millennium as the hottest decade on record, with the last 12 months the warmest 12 months, the last six months the warmest six months, and April, May and June 2010, the hottest April, May, and June on record. Highest ever temperature record for Asia, a record set in May in Pakistan, was just under 130 degrees F. As Bill McKibben commented, “I can turn my oven to 130 degrees.”

Russia’s heat wave caused a doubling in the daily death rate due to heat stress and from the smoke from fires that ringed the city. Wildfires covered 1,740 square kilometers. The street temperature in Moscow was 40 degrees C (104 degrees F). And the drought decimated the Russian wheat crop. President Putin ordered a ban on wheat exports. Ukraine also has suffered serious crop failures. It is simply too hot for the wheat to grow well. The Russian export ban will cause the price of grains to rise globally, threatening global food security.

Drought has also gripped much of Africa, with Niger reporting the worst drought in its history with villages being abandoned, leaving dead livestock behind.

Torrential rains hit much of Asia, with significant downpours also impacting Poland and Germany. China and Pakistan were hard hit. Nearly 1,500 people have died in the landslides in China. Approximately 1,600 people have died in Pakistan due to the flooding. The humanitarian impact extends far beyond the death toll. Thirteen million people have been affected. Millions are displaced. The floods due to a combination of torrential rains and illegal logging. Warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. We are all seeing the results of our changed atmosphere in more frequent, extreme events of torrential rainfall.

Glaciers have collapsed. From July 6-7, Greenland’s Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier lost a nearly 7 square kilometre chunk of ice and retreated one mile. On August 5, a different Greenland glacier, the Petermann Glacier, lost a 251 square kilometre “ice island.” Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice was at its lowest extent ever for the month of June.

Climate scientists are always careful to say that any one event cannot be blamed on the climate crisis, but they are clear that it is highly unlikely that the spate of climate disasters could have occurred if not for the dramatic changes in global climate caused by human activity.

The first task on this new Eaarth is to end our addiction to fossil fuels – quickly. We must avoid those “tipping points” in the atmosphere that condemn us to an unlivable planet. Its grim characteristics were described by scientist Stephen Hawking who fears Earth “could end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulphuric acid.” Such an end point remains unlikely, but possible. Avoiding it requires a dramatically different course than that set by the current government of ever expanding tar sands and no domestic plan to cut carbon. Once that new course has been set, the next steps require figuring out how we live on a new and less hospitable planet. We need strong, resilient communities, greater local food security, a green energy revolution. And we need governments around the world to wake up to the reality that there is no larger threat to our economy, our society, our future—and our present—than the climate crisis.

Elizabeth E. May is an Officer of the Order of Canada, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and nominate candidate for Parliament in Saanich Gulf Islands.

The post The future isn’t what it used to be appeared first on Elizabeth May.

• $2 billion for affordable housing;
• $500 million for a guaranteed farm income program;
• $89 million to further the ‘creative economy’;
• $551 million for renewable energy;
• $1.7 billion to transfer to provinces for affordable daycare;
• $615 to the Official Development Assistance program for international aid (Canada would spend only 0.7% of our GNI);
• $1 billion to extend EI benefits to 60% of the worker’s best 12 weeks of income;
• $1.5 billion to extend EI benefits to those who have worked 360 hours;
• $2.73 billion to give new income-tested grants to post secondary students;
• $2 billion to give to provinces to reduce poverty;
• $500 million for a green manufacturing fund;
• $847 million to increase single pensioners’ GIS benefits by 15%.

Using Green Party budget priorities, we could tweak the list to invest a lot in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and modern transportation, including highspeed rail.

Instead, the Defence Minister announced the purchase of 65 new fighter jets. Peter MacKay enthused about the jets. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jets are exciting new toys. They are so exciting that our government did not hold an open contracting process. We only wanted these planes. They can take off and land on aircraft carriers. They have stealth coating. They can engage in air-to-air combat and rely on mid-air re-fueling.

Many have argued, including Salt Spring Island resident Michael Byers in the Toronto Star, that none of those attributes are priorities in Canada. We don’t have aircraft carriers. We have no plausible security scenario in which air-to-air combat is anticipated. (The Battle of Britain was a long time ago.) And stealth coating? Are we planning a surprise invasion?

True, our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Our large geography has always led to a priority choice for two engine planes, so if a plane is in a remote spot and loses an engine, the pilot can get to a safe place to land. The F-35s are single engine planes. Asked what will happen if the engine fails, Peter MacKay replied ‘it won’t.’ We need planes for search and rescue. The F-35 is not appropriate for search and rescue.

But why are we spending so much now, within months of when the Harper government announced a freeze on defence spending as part of deficit fighting? Where is the money coming from in that frozen budget, or has the thaw begun?

The answer has much more to do with our early entanglement in the development of this fighter jet. This purchase is not a case of walking into a showroom and picking the design that works best. In fact, these planes are not in any show room. They are still in the testing phase. Canada, under previous Liberal governments, signed-on as a junior partner in the development of this plane. While the US took the largest share of the costs of developing this new fighter, other governments signed-on as well, since 2001 when Lockheed Martin won the bid to develop the plane. Canada’s involvement started with a $10 million ‘donation’ to be considered an ‘informed partner.’ In 2002, we threw another $150 million into the pot to qualify our industries to bid for contracts for plane components.

Like many military contracts in the US, the costs of the F-35 have spiralled and are way over budget. In March 2010, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the Congress that it was ‘unacceptable’ that the F-35 is 50% over-budget. Costs of developing the new fighter jets are approaching $300 billion. With bureaucratic baffle-gab that takes your breath away, the Pentagon critique of the fighter jet programme concluded: ‘affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar.’

So, it seems Canada is spending money we don’t have for planes we don’t need. And it seems we are doing this to hold our place in some macho military solidarity with the Pentagon.

The opportunity costs of $16 billion for fighter jets are enormous—in lost opportunities to reduce poverty, create jobs, protect health care and fight climate change.

None of this has been debated or discussed in the House. And it was not in the 2010 budget. I will work with other parties to reverse this sale and direct priorities to those Canadians value.

The post Why is Canada spending $16 billion on fighter jets? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

A lot more has disappeared in this budget than a primary colour.

There’s a fairly magical vanishing act with the $56 billion deficit. By 2015, the budget projects a $1.8 billion deficit. To get there, the Harper government is counting on a 40% increase in revenues from corporate profits, even as they continue to slash corporate tax rates. To have these numbers hold up, absolutely nothing can go wrong in Canada or the world economy’s recovery.

Real pain will come from a dramatic hike in EI premiums. The budget sets out that by 2015, the government will have collected $29 billion more in EI premiums than in 2010. The impact of this job-killing tax has already been protested by independent, small business and the labour movement. Other cuts are in projected increases in funding. Particularly hard-hit will be CIDA and our overseas development assistance, set to lose $4.5 billion in increased support. This translates into a budgetary freeze at CIDA, even though the budget claims Canada will help re-build Haiti and assist developing countries with impacts of the climate crisis. Stockwell Day is charged with finding $7 billion in cuts to government operations by 2015. Promised pension reform also disappeared. Instead, the government promises a national consultation.

Also gone, hey presto! is the funding for climate research to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. Many of the researchers at University of Victoria’s Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis have benefitted from grants from the CFCAS. Their work is now in jeopardy, as is the polar research station at Ellesmere Island, now likely to close. There was no renewal of the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative which boosted wind energy production (although the budget boasts of its success). There is nothing for national parks. No money for mass transit investments, and other than an already announced upgrading of existing VIA cars and track (to bring them up to standards in the developing world) nothing for trains. No high speed rail for Canadians. We just export that technology to China and Spain.

The elimination of funding for climate science is particularly egregious. IPCC scientist Dr Gordon McBean, who spent some of his earlier years on West Saanich Road in the Institute for Ocean Sciences, was outraged.

‘Budget 2010 is basically the nightmare scenario for scientists across the country—our community is gutted,’ said McBean who is Chair of Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. ‘…Without sound scientific information, how will the government evaluate the effectiveness of green technologies, or build northern infrastructure, or develop our energy industry, or assure water supply and clean air?’ he commented.

This question to the Harper government is largely rhetorical—how the government will evaluate anything related to science is a question that has not troubled this government. It has eliminated the Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and has cut into research before. This decision impacts climate research across Canada. We didn’t have a climate action plan before this budget and we don’t have one now. The new Harper government target, announced in January, represents yet another weakening. By changing our base year (again!) from 2006 to 2005, Canada has even more room to evade responsibility. Unlike the US, Canadian emissions in 2005 were higher than in 2006, so by shifting to 17% below 2005 instead of 20% below 2006 levels, we have reduced our target by 6%, not the 3% that simple math would suggest. We have the lowest target in the G-8, with no plan to get there. Our government’s strategy on climate change is transparent. Harper and Prentice continually associate our inaction with our commitment to a North American strategy. They claim we are ‘waiting for Obama’ before taking any action. If this government should still be in power by the time the US has settled on the details of their domestic plan, I am sure they will find a reason that they can no longer meet US actions.

President Obama, while hobbled by a flawed strategy of faith in bi-partisanship in the US Congress, has not stood still. The US stimulus package included hundreds of billions for green technology. Canada, in contrast, is the only nation in the G-20 to have cut support for renewables in the budget. The truth is that the Harper government is using the ‘waiting for Obama’ strategy as a stalling tactic. It has no intention of ever acting to reduce greenhouse gases. On the contrary, it is committed to their expansion.

That will explain why the budget section titled, ‘Green Jobs and Growth’ is all about oil, gas and uranium. It commits to reducing red tape that gets in the way of investments in energy mega-projects. To do that, the 2010 budget sets a course to remove energy projects from assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. All energy projects will now be assessed by the National Energy Board or, if nuclear, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

After Saanich–Gulf Islands MP Gary Lunn’s firing of Linda Keen, the former President of the CNSC, it is unlikely that boards or commissions will thwart the will of the Harper government. Keen’s firing sent shock waves through boards and tribunals. As Auditor General Shelia Fraser said at the time, it had had a ‘chilling effect.’

Meanwhile, the National Energy Board lacks the tools to conduct full environmental assessments. It is a quasi- judicial body, far more formal than Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). This change will not save money, but it is clearly intended to rush projects through review.

The planned expansion of the tar sands, the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline, pipelines across northern British Columbia and the use of oil takers to move tar sands crude to China will not be put to an environmental review under CEAA.

Oil spills such as that from the Exxon Valdez, are also of great concern to people living on southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands.

When such risky projects gets to the approval stage, I want to know they will be placed before a process founded on principles of public participation. I want to be confident we can present the best scientific case before an impartial panel of experts in environmental matters. Under this budget, that will not be possible.

We must push back on this dangerous delegation of responsibility. The Harper government may have used the gender-neutral lyrics for ‘O Canada’ as a deliberate diversionary tactic. Standing on guard for Canada means more than singing our anthem. It means defending our lands and waters.

You can view a visual presentation of Elizabeth May’s budget commentary at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzf3Bc7lQFU.

Elizabeth May, Order of Canada, is leader of the Green Party of Canada. She attended the Speech from the Throne and the budget lock-up with other Opposition leaders on March 4, 2010.

The post The bluest of budgets delivers a disappearing act appeared first on Elizabeth May.