Tabled in the House of Commons this week, May’s Private Members’ Bill C-484 amends the greenhouse gas emissionsregulations on coal electricity brought in late last year. “This Bill is what the Harper Conservatives would have done if they were serious about climate change,” said Elizabeth May. “Despite his talking points, Peter Kent bowed to the pressure of energy companies and weakened his already-weak greenhouse gas regulations on coal-fired electricity. C-484 shows how easily they could fix the regulations if they wanted to.”

These regulations, roundly criticized and wholly inadequate, sought to limit the greenhouse gasses produced through burning coal to generate electricity, yet contained gaping holes such as a 50 year grace period for plants built after 1986. Bill C-484 would insist that all coal-generated power plants in Canada adhere to the emissions standard, initially proposed by Peter Kent, of 375 tonnes per Gigawatt hour (t/GWh) by 2025.

“Any energy company executive that built a new coal plant in the last few decades was taking a calculated risk; the facts about climate change were already well known,” said Elizabeth May. “This Bill presents a responsible solution to our dirtiest sources of electricity that is both in line with what the science demands and provides sufficient time for Canada to transition our remaining baseload generation toward cleaner sources of energy.”

“How can we expect other countries like China, India, and the US to stop burning coal, when we can’t even manage to stop burning coal ourselves? We can’t be two-faced,” said Adam Olsen, Green Party candidate for Saanich North and the Islands. “Elizabeth’s Bill proposes that we start with our own backyard. It’s the right thing for our economy and for our environment.”

“With Canada’s high GDP and abundance of renewable energy sources we should be natural leaders in clean energy generation,” said Andrew Weaver, Green Party candidate for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and one of Canada’s leading climatologists. “Elizabeth’s private members bill is an important step in Canada’s much needed transition to a prosperous low carbon economy.”

The post Greens speak out for climate action, May explains her new Private Members’ Bill C-484 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

After facing the threat of international arbitration from foreign companies, India has ordered in January 2013 a freeze of all bilateral investment protection agreements negotiations until a governmental review is carried out and completed. Although news of India’s decision has not been mentioned in the Canadian media, the decision is clearly relevant.

“In November 2012, Prime Minister Harper told me in the House of Commons that the Indian Prime Minister was committed to signing a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Canada. I think Canada should take good note of India’s freeze on all investment protection agreements,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“The investor/state dispute system contained in investment agreements allows foreign companies to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Special arbitrators would take the decisions; their decision cannot be subject to judicial review. And the arbitrations are to be secret. Even the fact they are happening is to be secret,” said May.

“India is joining nations such as Australia and South Africa in saying ‘no’ to investor/state provisions. It’s time for Canada to also turn the page on this out-of-date and undemocratic international trade model,” said May.

The post “Canada Should Take Good Note of India’s Freeze on All Investment Protection Agreements” appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On March 4, the committee heard witness testimony from the President of Pacific Exotic Food Inc, as well as an individual; both shared their thoughts on a CEPA with India. Gian Dhesi, President of Pacific Food Inc discussed India’s economic history and argued that India has effectively attracted traders for centuries due to their treatment of guests; in India, guests are treated as gods. Dhesi proceeded to discuss current and future economic opportunities for Canada with India given India’s growing middle class (267 million people, in contrast to Canada’s 34 million citizens). Following Jas Ghuman’s testimony, however, the benefits of signing a trade agreement were derailed and a conversation about challenges facing business people emerged.

The duration of the meeting dealt with the merit of a CEPA and its ability to alleviate concerns with corruption. The solution that witnesses suggested included centralized control of business management, and ensuring a commitment to contract enforcement. While both witnesses exclaimed concerns with a CEPA, they both supported signing as agreement in theory.

Following the witnesses’ testimony, committee business was held in camera; the Honourable Wayne Easter questioned the rationale behind moving into camera.  While in camera, it was agreed , among other things, that the committee commence a study of the benefits for Canada in joining the Pacific Alliance as a full member beginning 18 March 2013 . The committee agreed to invite the ambassadors of Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia in Canada to appear before the committee as witnesses. The text of the decision can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On February 25, the committee heard witness testimony from the heads of the Starling Corporation, The Indus Entrepreneurs, and the Canadian Livestock Genetics Association. The overall theme of the proceedings dealt with the current timing of passing a CEPA, as well as the regulations Canada may face in their dealings with India. The general sentiment was twofold: approving a CEPA with India needs to happen sooner rather than later given the time restrictions facing small and medium business owners in India, as well as the opportunities that will emerge for Canadian entrepreneurs. Having a CEPA would mean that new, small, and medium businesses could stay afloat given open access to broader markets.  Timing is also pressing given that other nations are competing for trade agreements with India; there is an understanding that India is a market that Canada could significantly profit from through engaging in a formalized trade agreement. To Indus Entrepreneurs, and the Canadian Livestock Genetics Association, the sooner an agreement is signed, the better off both nations will be considering the three years of ongoing CEPA negotiations.

That being said, Predeep Sood, CEO of the Starling Corporation spoke to the nonessential nature of a CEPA with India. Sood affirmed that a CEPA is not necessary with India as India has strong trade relations with other nations that are proximally better suited to fit India’s needs. To Sood, an overarching CEPA would be inefficient for India, as this CEPA does not take into account regional differences within the country. Sood agrees that a CEPA is a good idea, but believes there remains no need to rush into signing an agreement, and that more research into the markets needs to be done.

On February 27, the committee heard testimony from the Presidents and CEOs of Pulse Canada and Minaean International Corporation, as well as Dr. John Harriss of Simon Fraser University. Harriss has a strong background in the Indian economy and is a professor of international studies at SFU. The major themes fleshed out in this session dealt with labour law enforcement and adjusting general expectations for what a CEPA may accomplish. NDP MP Davies raised similar concerns in both sessions in regards to child labour in India and asked about improvements in work conditions. There was a general consensus among witnesses that while work conditions have improved and child labour laws exist, law enforcement is challenging. This challenge much to do with the regulatory structures, but perhaps equally as much to do with the culture of the Indian economy; some children feel the incentive to work and this pressure does not always come from their family, sometimes it is simply their personal desire to work.

Merchant trading statistics between Canada and India were sited several times this week. Merchant trading between Canada and India has tripled over the last two years, and there is a possibility that by 2015, Canada may hit their target of 15 billion, but there will be an uphill battle. Given that India’s formal industries are heavily regulated and gaining access to foreign direct investments, as well as foreign portfolio investment present their challenges, a CEPA would help mitigate those challenges.

The post Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Indian government’s resistance is understandable. Following an attempt by the Indian government to recover taxes from an Indian subsidiary of UK-based multinational Vodafone, Vodafone threatened to challenge the Indian government’s decision by initiating arbitration proceedings under a bilateral investment treaty such as the pending Canada-India or Canada-China FIPAs. In response to this threat by a multinational against a decision taken by a democratic government, the Indian Parliament is reviewing all such agreements and will not likely sign another, similar to the decisive stance taken against FIPAs by the Government of Australia.

“Despite signing this FIPA more than 5 years ago and despite Canadian pressure, the Indian Parliament has declined to ratify this treaty and instead decided to reconsider some aspects of the Agreement that it found troubling,” said Elizabeth May, Green Party Leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands. “This is precisely what Canada should be doing now with the Canada-China FIPA”.

In an ironic twist, Prime Minister Stephen Harper calmly indicated his patience with the decision by the Indian Parliament to review such treaties, stating, “It’s hard to simply impose solutions and there are often a lot of barriers to getting things done at the governmental level. I’m one who happens to believe that democratic institutions, while they may slow things down, actually in the long term produce more robust outcomes with greater social buy-in and more secure long-term economic development.”

“What is truly shocking about the Prime Minister’s stated willingness to respect the democratic preferences and institutions of other countries while negotiating FIPAs”, observed May, “is his complete disdain for the will of Canadians and the role of our Parliament here at home. Will he take his own advice and submit the Canada-China FIPA to a Parliamentary review?”

The post Prime Minister’s Trip Fails to Pressure India to Ratify Canada-India FIPA appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Under NAFTA, we gave US and Mexican corporations the right to sue us if they felt our laws hurt their ‘expectation of profits’,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands. “We’ve lost half of those suits and it has cost us in both arbitration battles and awards. Now Stephen Harper is about to give powerful Chinese State-Owned Enterprises similar rights.”

Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, taxpayers have had to pay about $157 million to US corporations disagreeing with Canadian laws and regulations – and there are awards pending.

Canada is already the sixth most sued country under the investor-state dispute settlement regime, according to a recent UN Conference on Trade and Development report. At the same time, Canadian investors have sued other countries, usually the US, 16 times and lost every case – involving softwood lumber, cattle, gold mining, and more.

There is every reason to expect Chinese enterprises and investors to make use of their new right, especially in the resource sector. The Canada-China Investment Treaty does contain exemptions that were not in NAFTA. However, it is not clear these exemptions will be effective as China can still make claims for damages if it believes an environmental or health measure is “arbitrary” or a “disguised trade barrier.”

Unlike lawsuits under NAFTA and other treaties signed by Canada, the Chinese suits must be kept secret; the arbitration hearings and all documents, except the actual award, can be kept confidential at the discretion of the country being sued. We might not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions.

“If Chinese companies like CNOOC – the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation – make crucial inroads into Canada with the Nexen deal, for example, we will be even more vulnerable. Even the provinces, which will have no say in the process, might be asked to pay up,” said May.

“It is interesting that the Conservatives are pushing us into a secretive, potentially treacherous deal as countries like Australia, India, and South Africa are pulling away from investor-state provisions.”

The Canada-China Investment Treaty was tabled quietly in the House of Commons on September 26. The Conservatives do not plan any debate or vote. Once it is ratified, it will bind Canada for a minimum of 15 years and could apply for 31 years.

Suits under NAFTA have included:

1997 – Ethyl Corporation sued Canada for $250 million after it banned MMT, a neurotoxin gasoline additive. The Canadian government repealed the ban and settled for $13 million.

1998 – S.D. Meyers Inc., a US waste-disposal firm, challenged a ban on the export of PCB wastes and sued for $20 million. Canada paid $5 million, plus interest

2007 – Mobil Investments Canada Inc. & Murphy Oil Corporation claimed Canadian guidelines supporting local research and development were anti-NAFTA and sued Canada for $65 million The tribunal process continues.

2009 – After AbitibiBowater Inc. closed its last pulp and paper mill, Newfoundland enacted legislation for the return of certain land and assets. The company sued for $467.5 million. Canada paid $130 million to settle claim.

The post Chinese Investor Lawsuits Could Cripple Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ZWhrw8BeKJA]

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

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

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

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

“This should be a day to celebrate the fact that seven years ago humanity began to act together to prevent the grave dangers caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions,” said May.  “But the prime minister’s plan to pull out of Kyoto, in spite of the accord`s support by most Canadians, makes it a day of mourning instead.

[ZdW0QvQW9Qw]

“Our international reputation is tragically diminished.  This week, Brazil, South Africa, China, and India condemned Canada for its decision to withdraw, saying it ‘seriously’ brings into question our credibility in dealing with the very real threat of climate change.

In regard to the withdrawal from Kyoto, Environment Minister Peter Kent has stated that, if it remains, Canada risks having to pay $14 billion in compliance costs for not achieving its Kyoto targets.

“This is spin, designed to confuse Canadians,” said May.  “Hypothetically, if we were to decide we wanted to meet the 2012 target Harper repudiated back in 2006, when he cancelled all programmes to reach the Kyoto target, it would only be possible through buying credits.  These credits might cost the $14 billion Kent has claimed, but no one in their right mind would demand such a thing, and there is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol to force Canada to spend a dime.”

“Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet are playing fast and loose with the facts in order to convince Canadians that developing the oil sands, one of the world’s largest polluters, and allowing state enterprises of China to own and export bitumen crude production is good for our country.

“They claim that this won`t really hurt Canada’s national security and the already-overheated atmosphere, but let’s look at reality.”

Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver stated in the House on February 14 that:  “We should be proud of the fact that greenhouse gas emissions (in the oil sands) have been reduced by 30 percent over the last 10 years.” In fact, in 2005, the Pembina Institute reported that the oil sands released 37 megatonnes of GHGs, compared with 23 megatonnes in 2000.

Also, since the level of production is set to significantly increase, Environment Canada has predicted that GHG emissions will triple from 30 million tonnes in 2005 to 92 million tonnes in 2020. 

[XxLSJmzx8cY]

If the Minister meant to say per barrel emissions have gone down, he was correct until recently. In 2010, even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers admitted that per barrel GHG emissions rose by two percent over 2009 levels due to the increase of in situ production. That same year, total emissions increased by 14 percent. 

Last year, the Harper Conservatives had to admit that they deliberately left out data from their annual UN inventory indicating that oil sands emissions had gone up. 

At the same time, Minister Oliver told the House of Commons that the oil sands industry will create “$3 trillion in economic activity”, generating “hundreds of billions of dollars for government services to Canadians … and over 700,000 jobs a year over the next 25 years.”

“Are we to believe that China is investing in Canada for altruistic reasons?” asked May.  “We know that Sinopec purchased almost 10 percent of Syncrude, giving it a veto on that company’s right to keep jobs in Canada.  The Enbridge-China pipeline-and-tanker scheme will provide some temporary construction jobs, but it`s designed to take refining jobs from Canada.  Keystone XL, if it goes through, will do the same.

 “Experts have testified in committee that this approach has already been harmful to Canadian refineries, which have lost 10,000 jobs since 1989. So it sounds like the jobs and the profits will be leaving the country.

“Canadians need to know the truth about Kyoto and the Axis of Oil, and pressure the prime minister to stop the fiction.  One final distortion is that we are already out of Kyoto. Not true. We have only filed a legal notice of intent to withdraw.  It won’t take legal effect until December 2012.  Let’s cancel that notice and start being responsible global citizens.”

Greens are urging Canadians to go http://keepkyoto.ca/ to sign up and keep Canada in Kyoto.

The post Seven Years Today Kyoto Came Into Force – Celebrating an Anniversary and Exposing Government Fictions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“With the huge appetites of super refineries in India and China, the Canadian Chevron refinery will be out-bid by foreign companies, and will no longer be able to secure feed.  This would inevitably result in closure and a loss of jobs for highly-skilled Canadian workers,” said Green MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands Elizabeth May.

“The NEB has ignored the fact that there is a tanker moratorium on the BC coast. The shipping of oil from Burnaby was grandfathered back in 1972 but expanding tanker traffic fivefold while shipping out Canadian jobs with the crude has got to stop,” added May.

The Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline currently transports crude oil and refined products from Edmonton to the Greater Vancouver Area and Puget Sound, with the main line terminating at the Burnaby terminal.  Crude oil is used to feed the existing Chevron refinery in Burnaby or is shipped overseas by tankers via the Westridge marine terminal in Port Metro Vancouver.  The Chevron refinery in Burnaby was opened in 1935, and currently refines crude oil into petroleum products like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt, supplying roughly one third of transportation fuel to BC’s Lower Mainland.

“The problem is that Canadian jobs are not taken into account when the National Energy Board evaluates pipelines for the export of crude oil,” said May.  “We should be securing our own domestic supply of oil, not shipping it overseas.”

Russ Day, a spokesman with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), said Chevron recently lost out in a bid 20,000 barrels a day of crude from the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which represents over a third of the refinery’s maximum capacity.  Mr. Day has said the union, which represents about 140 workers at the Chevron refinery, has been told to expect reduced operations in March.

Kinder Morgan Canada is also considering asking the National Energy Board for approval to twin the Trans Mountain Pipeline, more than doubling its capacity from 300,000 barrels a day to 700,000 barrels a day.  If the entire volume is open for international bidding, Chevron, with its maximum capacity of 55,000 barrels a day, will most certainly be outbid. With increased pipeline capacity, less crude refined for local markets at the Burnaby refinery, and more oil being shipped out of the Westridge marine terminal, tanker traffic leaving Port Metro Vancouver can be expected to increase substantially.

“The Green Party of Canada, along with the CEP and countless other stakeholders, has repeatedly expressed our need for a national energy strategy.   Without a comprehensive and collaborative national policy that includes energy security, competitiveness, renewable energy, greenhouse gas management, Canadian jobs will continue to be eliminated, our resources will continue to be exported, and our ecosystems will continue to be in danger,” said May.

The post Local jobs lost while NEB favours foreign industry appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Last week the European Union announced a boycott of Iranian oil, delayed until July, to pressure the Iranian regime over its disputed nuclear program.  The Iranian government has in turn threatened to disrupt oil tanker shipping from the Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz in the event of economic restrictions on its own oil exports.  The United States government has indicated it would militarily oppose such an action.  At the same time, Asian nations that import 75% of Iranian oil exports are resisting joining the boycott for either economic reasons or because they consider the boycott counter-productive.

“This kind of brinkmanship diplomacy is more likely to build resentment and solidarity among the Iranian people and strengthen the hand of the government,” added Green International Affairs Critic Eric Walton. “If Iranian authorities are being honest with their own citizens and the international community about their nuclear program – and we should start with the good faith assumption that they are – they will suffer no financial penalty on oil exports.”

Combined with this pragmatic shift in tactics would be an agreement to address Iranian regional security concerns and commence Regional Nuclear Arms Reduction talks with neighbouring nations already possessing nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, Russia, China,  and Israel.

The post Brinkmanship Diplomacy with Iran Counter-Productive appeared first on Elizabeth May.