It has been a persistent problem in Canada’s economic performance that innovation, as reflected in investments in research and development, is lagging.

The fact that our competitiveness is tied to innovation, and R&D, is not disputed. Neither is the fact that Canadian business investment in R&D has been dropping. It has been in decline whether measured in total dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Last March, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attempted to restructure funds for R&D to stimulate business investment. “Canada is not keeping up with other advanced economies on this crucial front,” Mr. Flaherty told The Globe and Mail.

The policy response in the March 2012 budget was met with widespread skepticism. The Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credit program was overhauled to provide less support for such investments, and relatively more money available for direct grants to companies selected as the lucky winners by government. And that is a strategy with an empirically lousy record. Reducing the SR&ED program by over $500-million, less than half of that was to be re-invested in grants.

In the same Globe and Mail story on these changes, Jayson Myers, chief executive of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, noted “The government will be hard-pressed to show how outcomes will be improved in business R&D if they’re spending less money,” (Barrie McKenna, “Tories target lagging innovation with funding overhaul,” The Globe and Mail, March 29, 2012)

If looking for where government policy has been achieving solid results in innovation, a prime example has been the clean-tech investments made through Sustainable Development Technology Canada. In 19 rounds of funding approvals since SDTC’s creation in 2001, 228 projects have been allocated $560-million in funds. That level of investment has resulted in a highly-successful track record in leveraging funds from other project partners. The ratio is 2.4:1, with $1.4-billion leveraged from $560-million.

The clean-tech sector is one identified globally as having enormous potential. By 2020, it is estimated that the sector will be worth $3-trillion to the world economy.

Certainly, investments in the U.S. have been outpacing Canada. U.S. President Barack Obama’s new tone of resolve in addressing the climate crisis suggests that their previous level of support will be ramping up. Obama highlighted the potential of clean-tech to stimulate the economy and create jobs in his inauguration address: “We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries; we must claim its promise.”

Canada is under-performing here as well, with only one percent of the sector’s current $1-trillion global value. Still, that relatively small piece of the pie is responsible for 52,600 Canadian jobs in 700 clean-tech companies. The sector was worth over $10-billion last year, and that was a jump of 18 per cent over the previous year.

The creation last year of the new Parliamentary all-party clean-tech caucus, chaired by Conservative MP Jay Aspin, has engaged MPs across party lines in the exciting potential for innovation in clean-tech. The sector is making gains in improving the energy efficiency of the mining sector, reducing waste water in the oil sands, cutting deeply into the price differential between renewable and coal to the point that some new wind and solar out-performs coal in terms of price.

A recent report by the Pembina Institute, (Competing in Clean Energy: How Canada Can Capitalize on the Global Transition to Clean Energy, Jan. 22, 2013), based on a forensic review of the sector and extensive interviews, concluded that Canada could expand our clean-tech sector to $60-billion by 2020. That realistic assessment needs to be underscored. We have the potential for six-fold growth over the next seven years.

One of Pembina’s key recommendations to build the sector, creating jobs and export opportunities for Canada, was to ensure replenishment of funds to SDTC in this spring’s budget. Pembina recommended $100-million per year for the next five years. Whether that figure is the right one, or is too low, is a matter for discussion. But it is clear that anyone watching this sector in particular, and the innovation challenge, in general, would conclude it would be a dreadful tragedy to allow the SDTC to vanish for lack of replenishment in this spring’s budget.

Canada’s economy needs greater innovation. And our commitment to reduce greenhouse gases needs a burgeoning clean-tech sector. These goals, environment and economy, are mutually supportive. Getting pricing signals right, setting out a clear energy and climate policy, will all help ensure that Canada does not get left behind in the rapid global pursuit of clean-technology and green alternatives.

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

The post Canada’s innovation is lagging 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.

The Save Katimavik rally will be held at Queen’s Park, Toronto, on Saturday, July 21, at 2 pm.  Visit: http://savingkatimavik.com/events.html for more details.

“I am eager to speak at this rally because Katimavik has been a wonderful vehicle for introducing young people to their own country and its various communities,” said May.  “It has provided a productive way for our youth to appreciate their nation’s culture and its fascinating citizens.  Its closure is completely short-sighted.”  

Katimavik was created in 1977 by former prime minister Trudeau.  Every year since then, the programme has sent 1,100 people, ages 17 – 21, to volunteer with community organizations across Canada.  Empowering more than 30,000 youth, Katimavik has been praised by the UN and imitated by other countries. 

The programme’s cancellation was announced in the Harper Conservatives’ March budget.  On April 2, 2012, the Conservatives cancelled their own 2013 contract extension with Katimavik, leaving 600 young people stranded. 

Ironically, the $15-million programme, designed to provide youth with life skills, work experience, and a new outlook, is ending at a time of 14.8 percent youth unemployment.

Earlier this month, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report saying that high jobless rates, combined with long-term joblessness, would have a “scarring effect” on young people – affecting their career paths and future incomes.  According to Statistics Canada, roughly one in 10 unemployed young persons has been out of work for more than a year.

“Because too many young people are facing unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, our society should be doing whatever it can to help,” May argued.  “Does Harper really want to see them become demoralized and discouraged, as well as losing marketable labour skills?  What kind of economic management is that?”

The post Elizabeth May to Speak at Save Katimavik Rally appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“It is obvious that the Harper Conservatives are blasting ahead with their plans to allow any and all development to take precedence over environmental protection, so I don’t know why they are bothering with a consultation,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands. 

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been the target of drastic cuts, including a vital toxicology group in New Brunswick which monitors marine toxins, among other programs. 

“We’ve lost nine scientists in my riding, including internationally respected marine mammal expert Dr. Peter Ross, as part of the eradication of the entire DFO contaminants program.  This is a clear and chilling signal that marine pollution is no longer of concern to the Harper Conservatives,” said May.

“There will now be no oversight of marine toxins, including from the aquaculture industry,” said Green Fisheries Critic Janice Harvey.  “There is a definite lack of concern for ecosystem management.  Trying to protect a particular recreational or commercial fish species in isolation just shows a complete lack of understanding of the way marine ecosystems work.”

Almost 4000 federal public servants are currently waiting to find out whether they will lose their jobs.

Within DFO, 48 habitat management offices across Canada have been eliminated.  “With all of the scientists laid off, there will be no one left to raise the alarm when habitat is being damaged,” said Harvey.

According to Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, this summer’s consultation process is meant to figure out how to implement changes to the Fisheries Act.

“There is no implementing these changes. The changes have gutted the entire act.  Perhaps the implementation part is figuring out how to further speed the growth of resource extraction? Because it sure isn’t about protecting fish,” said May.

The post As DFO Jobs End, Consultations Begin? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am unhappy with the fact that this bill is continually described as though it will do great things for jobs and the economy, while we have failed as parliamentarians to examine the ways in which Bill C-38 is a threat to jobs and our economy.

I am taken by the fact that many Conservative members have spoken tonight about the importance of competitiveness, research and development, and innovation, yet all the best studies in the world on competitiveness—I mentioned, for example, Michael Porter at Harvard University—have said that when the rigour of environmental regulations is reduced, the result is less competitiveness and fewer innovations.

This is the one area where Canada is really lagging, R and D and innovation. Would my hon. friend comment on whether he agrees with me that this so-called budget implementation bill will actually undermine Canada’s competitiveness and reduce our ability to come up with the research and innovation to stay ahead?

David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the member’s question is spot on.

In the 21st century, we should not be racing to compete with jurisdictions that can dig up minerals, cut forests, harvest fish and move into the natural resources industry that Canada used to excel at in the early 20th century. This is not Canada’s role for the future.

Where is the investment and venture capital? Why are we discussing new start-ups for Canada? Why is the Sustainable Development Technology foundation being robbed of capital to capitalize and partner with our private sector to give rise to new green technologies?

The race is on for energy efficiency all over the planet. Every jurisdiction knows this. Canada should be leading this race, but unfortunately I do not think the Prime Minister has a pair of running shoes.

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

As Farley Mowat documented decades ago in Sea of Slaughter, we have already caused a drastic loss of biodiversity in our oceans.  The Magdalen Islanders once hunted walrus, we had Orcas on the east coast, seabirds once blocked out the sun in their enormous numbers, while the coho, sockeye and steelhead salmon runs kept hundreds of B.C. canneries humming, and sea otters existed in large numbers, hanging on to their kelp moorings to munch on abalone.  As beautiful as our oceans are today, what we see is a tragically decimated and threatened water world.

Our oceans are facing numerous threats — over-fishing, pollution from both land-based and marine sources, astonishing levels of plastics circulating in the oceans — an estimated 143 million tons of plastic currently imperils life in the seas, and the dual climate change-related threats of increased temperatures and acidification are the most dangerous of all.  On top of all this we have the increased threat of oil and gas development in fragile ecosystems.

Recently, we have seen a growth of off-shore oil and gas, creating conflicts in some areas between fishing and fossil fuel industries.  The US-Canada agreement to keep oil drilling off Georges’ Bank on the east coast was extended in May 2010 to December 31, 2015.  A similar measure is urgently needed for the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.  The Gulf is the most biologically productive marine region in Canada and is essentially an inland sea, as it is surrounded by four Atlantic provinces, with Prince Edward Island in the middle.  Any oil spill would be caught in the counter-clockwise currents of the Gulf, bringing disaster to a multi-billion dollar fishery.   Despite this and despite the fact the promised regional environmental review promised by the Minister of Environment in June 2011 has not yet taken place, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is specifically targeted in Budget 2012 for oil and gas development.

Similarly, recently the Harper Conservatives have launched an oil rush for license bids in the Beaufort Sea.  There is no ecosystem more fragile than that that is ice-covered (at least at the moment) for much of the year.  It is worrying that the National Energy Board has recently accepted industry demands to remove the requirement that any project must be capable of drilling a relief well in the same drilling season to cap any blow-outs.  This is conditional on industry having another viable technology to achieve the same end. So far, the industry has not explained how it will meet this relaxed requirement.

At the same time as the Harper Conservatives aggressively promote off-shore oil and gas development, as well as super-tanker traffic with bitumen crude heading west from Kitimat through some of the most treacherous waters on earth, they are also cutting the emergency response measures to cope with disaster.

Environment Canada’s Environmental Emergency Programme has been shrunk from regional offices, including one in Vancouver, to one office in Quebec.  Ten Coast Guard operations are being shut down.  In BC alone, we are losing the search and rescue operation in Vancouver plus marine communication operations in Kitsilano, Comox and Tofino.  The cuts affect the ability of the Coast Guard to monitor and deal with marine pollution offences. As well, the safety of mariners could be affected.

Meanwhile, the entire contaminants programme within DFO has been shut down.  Nearly all of the DFO scientists studying marine toxicology across Canada are being laid off – 75 scientists. Dr. Peter Ross, a globally respected scientist from BC, recently dismissed from DFO, lamented, “The entire pollution file for the government of Canada, and marine environment in Canada’s three oceans, will be overseen by five junior biologists scattered across Canada – one of which will be in BC.”  (quoted in Times Colonist, “Ottawa sinks pollution checks,” May 20, 2012)

Most shocking, as the Prime Minister presses on to put super-tankers in the Hecate Strait, ranked by his own government as the fourth most dangerous body of water on the planet, scientific studies to determine DFO’s Centre for Off-shore Oil, Gas, and Energy Research (COOGER) is closing, ending work in progress in many areas, including a “Baseline Hydrocarbon Study in Hecate Strait.” It was studying impacts of oil and gas leaks, counter-measures for an oil spill, restoration of environment after any spill, among other key areas.

For Oceans Day, June 8, 2012, our Prime Minister is land-locked.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post We are an ocean nation, with a land-locked Prime Minister appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the cuts, the loss of $4 million to the co-operative development initiative, particularly because 2012 is the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives.

We talk about economic development and the government’s economic action plan. I would appeal to the member that we use this opposition day debate to explore ways, through greater support and investment in the tools that help co-operatives and credit unions, to expand their operations. That expands job opportunities. That is part of an economic action plan. I would ask my hon. friend if there is not scope to support the motion today.

Mike Lake: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member comes from a western riding, I will use the opportunity to talk about some of the investments that have been made through Western Economic Diversification.

The Bison Feeder Co-operative of Saskatchewan, Kronau Community Recreation Co-operative, Lucky Lake Co-operative Community Centre, High Prairie Seed Cleaning Co-op, which I mentioned earlier, Venables Valley Producers Co-op and the Farmers’ Markets Association of Manitoba co-op are significant examples of investments that have been made through WED with regard to co-operatives.

As I mentioned in my speech, there will continue to be programs that are available to co-operatives just like they are available to non-co-op enterprises through the Business Development Bank of Canada and through different regional development agencies.

Co-ops across the country can take advantage of those tremendous opportunities but, most important, they will be able to take advantage of one of the strongest economies in the developed world right in Canada.

The post Business of Supply – Opposition Motion—Cooperatives appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“This is an historic and crucial time for Parliament and Canadians,” said May.  “The Harper Conservatives are playing fast and loose with our democracy, our traditions, and too often the facts.  There were several factors that reveal the weaknesses in the Conservatives’ agenda.”

The economy is going backwards.  Economist Jim Stanford pointed out in an analysis for the Centre for Policy Alternatives that: “In July, 2011, unprocessed and semi-processed resource exports accounted for two-thirds of Canada’s total exports, the highest in decades,” wrote Stanford. “Compare that to 1999, when finished goods made up almost 60 per cent of our exports.”

Dutch Disease is alive and well in Canada.  Even the respected Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has warned Canada about its inflated petrodollar, which inevitably hurts businesses depending on exporting their products (manufacturing, services, tourism).  Oil companies’ annual reports show that the higher dollar hurts their cash flow and profits.

Canada might suffer financially as it becomes an environmental pariah.  The respected National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy warned in a report recently that Canadian businesses might suffer “significant economic repercussions” affecting Canada’s growth and our international competitiveness if this country ignores or avoids sustainable environmental practices in the manufacture of its export products. 

Labour myths are propping up Bill C-38 changes.  The Harper Conservatives have been repeating the message that there are “large and growing labour shortages.”  The most recently released Statistics Canada data on job vacancies – for the three months ending in January, 2012 – show that there were 6.4 unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy.

 “I urge Members of Parliament from all parties to consider the full picture, the real state of our economy, and our childrens’ futures as they wrestle with Bill C-38,” said May.

The post May Urges Opposition/Public to Stop Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I wonder if the government could give us an estimate of what it would cost if we ceased to have political refugee claimants able to work in communities and support themselves, and if they are deemed irregular entries to Canada, put into a detention facility for up to a full year?

Tilly O’Neill Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I know that Bill C-31 would help our government put a stop to those who seek to abuse our generosity. It would help to get immigrants here faster. We would welcome them and be glad to have them work in our system.

The post Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Ideally, Canadians would have an opportunity to discuss what energy decisions are most in our national interest: to export bitumen crude as fast as possible? To refine the crude in Canada creating tens of thousands of jobs here? To continue to allow Eastern Canada to be dependent on Nigeria, Angola, and Venezuela for oil supplies, or to improve the pipeline infrastructure heading east from Alberta to serve the rest of Canada?

We are not going to have that opportunity. With the 2012 budget, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have made it clear (as if it were not abundantly clear already) that discussion about Canada’s energy policy will be viewed by them as tantamount to a direct attack on the national interest. To point out that ignoring the climate crisis actually hurts our economy with costs by 2020 of over $5-billion per year (conservatively), as the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (NRTEE) did, is sufficient cause for execution. Given the small cost of the NRTEE, its origins in the Mulroney era, and its mandate to bring industry leaders together with labour, environmental groups and others to find multi-stakeholder consensus, the decision to kill it was a shock. Environment Minister Peter Kent’s defence of the decision (obviously not his decision) that we no longer need such an advisory body because we have the internet is a joke.

For an environmental group to organize to protect the environment of British Columbia is to become targeted for “sanctions” under the Canada Revenue Agency, with $8-million set aside for going after environmental groups. As The Globe and Mail pointed out “witch hunts do not come cheap.”

The CRA has been conducting a steady campaign of harassment against environmental charities for years. Audits have been frequent for years, with the desired chilling effect on public criticisms of government policy. Does Mr. Harper really need to direct $8-million more to equip CRA for even greater levels of harassment?

The decisions have all been made. The problem is that in asserting that oil supertankers can safely traverse British Columbia’s northern coastal waters, the Prime Minister is ignoring quite substantial evidence.

Transport Canada shocked experts through a facile conclusion delivered to the Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge supertanker scheme. No doubt at the direction of their political masters, Transport Canada told the panel it saw no “regulatory difficulties” with the proposal. The document tabled to the review process in defence of this pre-ordained conclusion is a shoddy piece of work. There is no reference to the 1972 moratorium on oil tankers, respected by every federal and British Columbia government since then. The conclusion the route is safe is based on the width and depth of channels and whether supertankers can actually fit through them. The only discussion of weather and wave and storms is to suggest that (over time) a system of weather warnings will be set up to warn tankers to stay in port if it’s stormy. How the tankers are to handle the extreme conditions known to come out of nowhere in the area is simply not discussed.

In that it has ignored Environment Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual which states that the Hecate Strait (through which the supertankers must pass) is “the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world.”

Author John Vaillant in his classic, The Golden Spruce, described the Hecate Strait as “a malevolent weather factory: on a regular basis its unique combination of wind, tide, shoals, and shallows produces a kind of destructive synergy that has few parallels elsewhere in nature.” He goes on to describe how “blind rollers”enormous waves that come out of nowherecan expose the sea floor of Hecate Strait. The submission to the review process never even mentions the Hecate Strait.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans review of the threat to humpback whales in 2005 named the proposed tanker traffic to Kitimat as a threat to whale recovery. Humpback whales are listed as a species at risk in the threatened category. Scientists actually think the fin whales may be even more at risk of tanker collisions. The Transport Canada document suggests they will have whale spotters to warn a captain to avoid a whale. Really? Whale spotters can see whales in fog? At night? In a gale? No wonder that even in the report to the review panel contains concerns from DFO and recommends that Enbridge continue to work on this problem.

Lastly, Transport Canada’s conclusions are based on a long list of safety features, including using two tug boats to assist in supertanker navigation, which are voluntary. Enbridge will not own or control the tankers, but asserts its approach to tanker approval will ensure safety of the tankers it does not control.

Some people may buy this bland reassurance. It is a lot easier if you only care about selling bitumen crude to China, and a lot harder if you care about the existing tens of thousands of B.C. jobs dependent on a healthy coastal ecosystem. In fact, if you care about keeping B.C.’s coast oil-free, it is impossible.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Why oil supertankers have no place on B.C. coastline appeared first on Elizabeth May.