If the Premier of British Columbia continues to maintain that British Columbians and the Government of British Columbia reject Enbridge’s twin toxic pipelines, will the Prime Minister agree to rescind approval and respect the province of British Columbia’s jurisdiction and the collective will of British Columbians, or does he intend to force it down our throats?

Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, we have been clear that projects will only move forward if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. After carefully reviewing the independent regulator’s report, the government accepts the recommendation to impose 209 conditions on the project. It will be up to the proponent to show the regulator and Canadians that those conditions have been met.

The post Oral Questions – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Prime Minister once urged the province of Alberta to resist heavy-handed tactics from a hostile federal government. Will he ensure that the project does not go ahead unless British Columbians accept it?

Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, the joint review panel has submitted its recommendation to the government. Projects will only be approved if they are safe for Canadians and safe for the environment. We are carefully reviewing this recommendation and a response will be forthcoming.

The post Oral Question – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

From his first words, “Recently, Green Party leader Elizabeth May orchestrated an open letter to United States Secretary of State John Kerry..,” it was pretty clear he didn’t grasp the concept of writing a letter. “Orchestrated?” “Open letter?”

Not quite. The U.S. State Department had a period for public comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the proposed TransCanada pipeline to take unprocessed bitumen from Alberta to tidewater at the Gulf of Mexico. Having reviewed the submission and visited Washington D.C. in February, it was clear to me that some key points were ignored in the FEIS, while many useful findings of the report were being overwhelmed by popular misconceptions about the nature of the project. I thought it would be potentially helpful to Secretary Kerry to point out a few of these points. The letter was admittedly a bit complex as it assumed a general familiarity with the FEIS.

From reviewing Mr. Green’s piece, it seems he never actually read my letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In an effort to draw interest to the letter, a simplified version was circulated by the Green Party as an email message, summarizing some of the points, but including the link to the full submission. Mr. Green seems to have only gotten as far as the short email.

Now to his critique of my main points.

1. In my letter I asked Kerry to reject the Keystone pipeline in order to assist Canada’s long-term energy security and prosperity: “I urge that you do so as the most helpful decision to assist Canada avoid huge future economic losses when the carbon bubble bursts.”

I wrote this being certain that Secretary Kerry was familiar with the term “carbon bubble.” Mr. Green, apparently unfamiliar with the term, leapt to the conclusion that I was talking about Dutch Disease. He then proceeded to box me about the ears for something I had not claimed.

Canada has suffered from a mild case of Dutch Disease. This was the finding of the OECD report to Canada in 2008. However, in my letter to Secretary Kerry, I wasn’t talking about Dutch Disease at all.

Rather, I was referring to the “Carbon Bubble. This term has gained prominence ever since the International Energy Agency explained that of all known reserves of fossil fuels, the planet’s atmosphere cannot withstand the burning of more than one third of them prior to 2050. In other words, two thirds of all known reserves must stay in the ground till mid-century or we will sail right past the danger levels in the atmosphere and unleash truly catastrophic levels of climatic disruption. Other analysts then began to assess the stated value of many fossil fuel enterprises and realize that their assessed values drop precipitously when two thirds of their reserves are removed from valuation.

The other aspect of the term “carbon bubble” is that, just as in any commodity being over-valued, when the bubble bursts a smart investor hopes to have diversified the portfolio prior to the moment of implosion. This is more the point former CIBC Chief Economist Jeff Rubin makes when he talks about the folly of putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket.

The other key economic point is this: all the proposed pipeline projects on the drawing board right now are about shipping out unprocessed product. In other words, Canada’s current government is putting all its weight behind multinationals that want Canada to lose out on all the “value added” processes. Where upgraders in northern Alberta had been on the drawing board prior to the 2008 financial crisis, when the dust settled and investment began to flow once again to the oil sands, the upgraders — and the Alberta jobs they would create — had been replaced by pipelines transporting bitumen to processing in other countries. Shipping out raw bitumen is dumb.

I agree that there is a debate about the economic impact of the current bitumen-based policies. One would think that given the over-blown claims of Canada as an “energy super-power” we might, as citizens and as Parliamentarians, have expected to see a detailed cost-benefit review of the oil sands project. There is none. There is only a pile of assumptions buttressed by unquestioning repetition by most of our news media, fortified by millions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda.

2. The product to be shipped is not “crude” at all, neither is it a 100 per cent Canadian fossil fuel product.

There is a very weak level of understanding of the nature of the product to be shipped in the FEIS, as well as in Washington media. Again, my letter to Secretary Kerry adds the context which is a bit truncated in the email. My primary point was that the FEIS was deficient in describing the product as “crude.”

Here’s the excerpt from my letter:

“The State Department report makes the error of describing the Keystone project as being about the shipment of crude oil.

“There are many kinds of crude. Some will argue that bitumen is a form of crude. I ask you to rule that the whole report is deficient in failing to notice that bitumen is not crude.

“I ask you to find that, no matter how light or heavy crude oil may be, to be called ‘crude,’ it is at least required to be a liquid.

“Bitumen is essentially a solid.

“It will only move through proposed pipelines once it has been mixed 30-70 with ‘diluents.’ Diluent is not a term of science, but of industry usage. It has no precise chemical meaning. It is generally a fossil fuel condensate — an otherwise valuable product. It is usually naptha, with benzene added, and often butane as well. It is not produced in sufficient quantities in Canada to keep pace with the planned oil sands boom.

“It is imported to Canada. Enbridge stated in its submission to the NEB hearings that it planned to import its diluents from Saudi Arabia. So ‘dilbit’ is not a 100 per cent Canadian product at all; nor does it necessarily unplug the U.S. from Middle East dependency.”

As one of the sales pitches south of the border is that this is a friendly Canadian product, I thought it was worth pointing out that at least some of the diluents will be coming in from OPEC.

3. Rail versus pipeline.

In my February Washington meetings, I found that the multiple recent rail disasters, most tragically Lac Megantic, are being used as a pro-Keystone argument. My letter to Secretary Kerry made a few key points (well buttressed by research) that are relevant to this claim:

•  If you accept our Prime Minister’s stated goal of more than tripling production in the oil sands, then adding up all existing pipeline proposals – Enbridge, Kinder-Morgan, Keystone and Energy East — still mean the use of rail to get dilbit to market.
• The FEIS found that higher transportation costs would operate as a limiting factor on oil sands expansion. So saying “no” to Keystone would help limit growth in the oil sands because shipping by other means is more costly.
• And lastly, both Canada and the U.S. urgently need to regulate for greater rail safety by removing the DOT111 rail cars from our tracks.

4. I pointed out to Secretary Kerry that the Harper administration, having pledged in 2009 to meet the voluntary Copenhagen target also undertaken by the Obama administration, has utterly failed to make any progress towards it. To this Mr Green essentially argues that Canada is so small a contributor to global emissions, who cares if we never keep any promise we make?

The Obama administration itself claims to care. It was the U.S. administration that decided a key criterion in the Keystone decision will be whether approving Keystone would increase GHG emissions.

The larger point is that Canada has no credibility. Having repudiated legally binding commitments under Kyoto, ratified by Parliament, then legally withdrawn from Kyoto (without any debate or vote in Parliament), Stephen Harper took on the Copenhagen target. Obama’s administration will have reached its target while Canada blows right past ours. I really did not need to include this in my letter to Secretary Kerry as the FEIS reports in detail exactly how lamentable is Canada’s performance.

In the 1980s, when Brian Mulroney wanted to get the Reagan administration to stop polluting Canada with acid rain-causing sulphur dioxide, he adopted a Canadian policy of “clean hands.” We came to the U.S. to ask that they cut their sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent once we were already on track to do so ourselves. And the U.S. did, because Canada had taken the moral high ground. We had done what we were asking the U.S. to do, in the interests of our shared environment.

Prime Minister Harper has turned this principle on its head. He has adopted the “dirty hands” policy. Create a record of callous disregard for the fate of the world faced with increasingly dangerous outcomes due to the profligate waste of fossil fuels. And then claim, as part of a sales pitch for oil sands bitumen exports, that we have robust environmental laws and a shared climate goal. This after eviscerating our laws and betraying every promise.

Mr. Harper is a smart man. The only way he could have the chutzpah to try such a tarry hands policy is if he presumes that Mr. Obama is just as disingenuous as himself on climate.

This may prove to be Mr. Harper’s undoing on Keystone. President Obama has disappointed over and over again, but he does appear to grasp the over-whelming significance of the climate crisis.

I am not a bit surprised that the Fraser Institute thinks it is irrelevant that Canada’s emissions are rising, nor that we will be essentially at the same level of emissions in 2020 as we were in 2005. If the Fraser Institute were interested in fact-checking against climate target claims, the place to look for whoppers is not in my letter to Secretary Kerry, but in the daily talking points of Conservative ministers.

In Question Period, they variously claim we are “on track,” “half way to Copenhagen,” or “130 MT less than we’d be under the Liberals. (That last one is really a desperate “hail Mary” pass of a whopper. It falls apart for anyone with a memory that extends to 2005 when there actually was, at long last, a viable Liberal plan that would have gotten us, if not all the way to our Kyoto pledge, at least below 1990 levels by 2012.)

This is how I summarized the issue to Secretary Kerry:

“In 2005, our emissions were 737 megatons (MT). In 2020, our emissions will be 734 MT. We promised 130 MT in reductions. Despite efforts by several provinces, notably a successful carbon tax in my home province of British Columbia, all progress at the provincial levels has been wiped out by growth in the oil sands.

“The most effective way to send a strong message that Canada must start behaving as a responsible participant in the global challenge to avoid exceeding a 2 degree C global average temperature increase, a pledge to which your administration and ours have committed, is to reject Keystone. It will be helpful to explain that part of the reason is that Canada has negotiated in bad faith at the climate table. There have been no sanctions created globally for neglecting climate obligations. The least that should be done is not to reward bad conduct.”

Lastly, I closed the letter to Secretary Kerry by pointing out that the U.S. has to get its own house in order. I challenged him to stop the State Department’s foot dragging in global summits and start to show leadership. I urged that the U.S. stop burning off flared gas from the Bakken fields, producing high-carbon natural gas from fracking and stop its dependence on coal.

All in all, I am glad I took the time to set out some of the less reported issues around Keystone. And in that spirit, I thank the Fraser Institute for ignoring my detailed letter so that I would have a chance to explain the range of concerns it contained.

Originally posted in the Huffington Post.

The post Seems the Fraser Institute Didn’t Quite “Get” My Letter to John Kerry appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 5, I asked my question of the Prime Minister. This was coincidentally the same day the Prime Minister created his own special task force and asked Mr. Doug Eyford to prepare a report on forging partnerships and building relationships with first nations in relation to proposed west coast energy projects.

When that report came out, it made it very clear what everybody already knew. The Supreme Court of Canada had made it abundantly clear that the federal government, provincial governments and corporations dealing with first nations rights and territories have a strong constitutionally protected requirement to fully consult in a meaningful way with first nations before participating in resource development on their land.

Mr. Eyford’s report contained four points. He urged the Prime Minister to build trust, foster inclusion, advance reconciliation and then take action.

What I raised with the Prime Minister was the distressing case of what took place on Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi’kmaq community near Rexton, New Brunswick. The first nation community was dealing with an energy proposal, the non-conventional issue of hydraulic fracking. The community of Elsipogtog was widely supported by people in New Brunswick and adjacent communities, who were also concerned and did not want fracking. They were concerned about their groundwater.

The protests that led to arrests were against SWN, a Houston-based company, that wanted to do hydraulic fracking and seismic testing. This testing was supported by the New Brunswick premier but not by the people of New Brunswick and not by the Mi’kmaq people. Exploration testing was to be done without consultation with Elsipogtog and Mi’kmaq first nations in contravention of numerous court decisions, most notably the Marshall decision, which dealt specifically with Mi’kmaq first nations’ rights. This first nation has unceded territory. No treaty could possibly be produced that would allow what has been going on in New Brunswick with the pressure for hydraulic fracking on first nations territory.

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister responded by saying he understood his obligations and in fact had just received the report to which I referred moments ago from Mr. Eyford.

I remain deeply concerned about this incident as a representative of British Columbia and the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety about what could be coming if there should be, God forbid, a pipeline approved over first nations’ territories where British Columbians and first nations do not want it.

If the example of what has taken place at Elsipogtog were to be played out in British Columbia, I would be deeply concerned. There was neither consultation nor was there an attempt to build trust, good relationships or reconciliation. Instead there were the violent RCMP arrests on what had been up to that moment a non-violent protest. We need an explanation.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 5, I asked my question of the Prime Minister. This was coincidentally the same day the Prime Minister created his own special task force and asked Mr. Doug Eyford to prepare a report on forging partnerships and building relationships with first nations in relation to proposed west coast energy projects.

When that report came out, it made it very clear what everybody already knew. The Supreme Court of Canada had made it abundantly clear that the federal government, provincial governments and corporations dealing with first nations rights and territories have a strong constitutionally protected requirement to fully consult in a meaningful way with first nations before participating in resource development on their land.

Mr. Eyford’s report contained four points. He urged the Prime Minister to build trust, foster inclusion, advance reconciliation and then take action.

What I raised with the Prime Minister was the distressing case of what took place on Elsipogtog First Nation, a Mi’kmaq community near Rexton, New Brunswick. The first nation community was dealing with an energy proposal, the non-conventional issue of hydraulic fracking. The community of Elsipogtog was widely supported by people in New Brunswick and adjacent communities, who were also concerned and did not want fracking. They were concerned about their groundwater.

The protests that led to arrests were against SWN, a Houston-based company, that wanted to do hydraulic fracking and seismic testing. This testing was supported by the New Brunswick premier but not by the people of New Brunswick and not by the Mi’kmaq people. Exploration testing was to be done without consultation with Elsipogtog and Mi’kmaq first nations in contravention of numerous court decisions, most notably the Marshall decision, which dealt specifically with Mi’kmaq first nations’ rights. This first nation has unceded territory. No treaty could possibly be produced that would allow what has been going on in New Brunswick with the pressure for hydraulic fracking on first nations territory.

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

The Prime Minister responded by saying he understood his obligations and in fact had just received the report to which I referred moments ago from Mr. Eyford.

I remain deeply concerned about this incident as a representative of British Columbia and the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. There is a tremendous amount of anxiety about what could be coming if there should be, God forbid, a pipeline approved over first nations’ territories where British Columbians and first nations do not want it.

If the example of what has taken place at Elsipogtog were to be played out in British Columbia, I would be deeply concerned. There was neither consultation nor was there an attempt to build trust, good relationships or reconciliation. Instead there were the violent RCMP arrests on what had been up to that moment a non-violent protest. We need an explanation.

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is aware that fracking is mostly under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am happy to say that our government always strives to meet its constitutional obligations.

Aboriginal consultations are a key part of our responsible resource development initiatives. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our government is working to strengthen aboriginal involvement in Canada’s resource sectors.

Canada’s resource industries already employ some 32,000 aboriginal people, more than any other sector of our economy. This level of employment will only increase as we see more and more projects come forward. Indeed, over $650 billion worth of projects have been proposed, the majority of which are near or on aboriginal lands. These projects could have an enormously positive impact on the prosperity of aboriginal communities.

The member opposite has been clear in her opposition to resource development. I hope the member opposite will excuse me if we follow a different path.

Our government wants to ensure that we develop our resources responsibly to create jobs while ensuring that the environment is protected. Our government’s plan for responsible resource development is improving Canada’s regulatory system by reducing red tape and modernizing processes, while strengthening environmental protection and enhancing consultations with aboriginal peoples.

As my colleague mentioned, we are taking action. Douglas Eyford, Canada’s special federal representative on west coast energy infrastructure, recently provided the government with recommendations that will support greater aboriginal participation in resource development. The themes of the Eyford report–trust, inclusion, and reconciliation–can guide all parties in building further the relationships that will underpin responsible resource development and the participation of aboriginal peoples. The report by the special federal representative is a solid basis for sustained engagement with west coast aboriginal people. It recognizes an opportunity for aboriginal communities to realize long-term benefits and to be partners in west coast energy development.

Our government has been, and currently is, engaging and will continue to engage with aboriginal communities on concrete ways to move forward on the recommendations in the report.

The Eyford report builds upon previous initiatives taken by our government to support aboriginal participation in the resource sectors. For example, in 2012 the federal budget provided more than $690 million for skills development, education, and infrastructure. In addition, our plan for responsible resource development includes a commitment to ensure that consultations with aboriginal peoples on natural resources projects are more consistent, accountable, meaningful, and timely.

The plan includes, first, the integration of consultations with aboriginal peoples into the new environmental assessment and regulatory processes; second, the provision of $13.6 million over two years to support aboriginal consultations on projects; third, the designation of a lead department or agency as a single crown consultation coordinator for each major project review; fourth, negotiation with provincial and territorial governments to better align government processes and improve the involvement of aboriginal peoples; and fifth, the promotion of positive and long-term relationships with aboriginal communities to facilitate greater participation of aboriginal peoples in the direct and indirect benefits of new resource projects.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I did reference Mr. Eyford’s report. However, it is clear from the events in Elsipogtog that it has certainly come too late for that relationship. There has been no consultation advanced.

While it is true that fracking is a provincial responsibility, the federal environment commissioner, in his fall 2012 report, found that for the parts that are federal, such as tracking toxic chemicals used in fracking, Environment Canada did not even have a full list of those chemicals used, and it always remains a federal fiduciary responsibility to ensure that first nations’ rights are not being infringed upon through resource development.

As for the question of going forward in British Columbia and my opposition to resource development, I do not oppose resource development. I oppose the reckless, untrammelled rapid development of oil sands for the sole purpose of shipping out raw product. If the bitumen were being processed in Alberta, I think our discussions would be very different. However, all pipeline proposals are for raw bitumen mixed with a diluent that has to be purchased from Saudi Arabia.

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, as our government has stated repeatedly, we will ensure that aboriginal consultations fully meet our duty to consult and are open and meaningful. We will continue meeting with first nations groups to strengthen the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and first nations.

Resource projects give aboriginal communities the potential to turn the high cost of isolation into a huge advantage of proximity. In fact, most mines and exploration properties in Canada are located within 200 kilometres of an aboriginal community. There are 400,000 aboriginal youth under the age of 15, representing a major wave of potential new entrants into the labour market, and over the next 10 years it is expected that Canada’s resource sectors will need to hire thousands of workers.

The scale of economic activity is enormous and it is estimated that there is a potential of $650 billion worth of major resource projects in Canada in the next decade. Such development would create thousands of new jobs. Right now, the resource industries make up about one-fifth of our national economy, creating and supporting more than 1.8 million jobs across our great country. In addition to the good jobs they provide, the resource industries generate over $30 billion in royalties and tax revenues, funds that support schools, hospitals, and other vital services for all Canadians, including aboriginal communities.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Aboriginal communities hold constitutionally protected rights. The law requires potential impacts on those rights to be taken into account in project development.

In the context of the increasing tensions in New Brunswick in the fracking protests there, does the Prime Minister recognize that he is legally bound by our Constitution to ensure that the Mi’kmaq of Elsipogtog are fully consulted in advance of any fracking on their unceded territory?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course we recognize our constitutional obligations. That is why aboriginal consultations are obviously part of our responsible resource development initiatives.

Specifically, the report tabled today was a report that I commissioned to ensure not just that we do fully and properly consult with aboriginal peoples but also ensure that aboriginal peoples have the opportunity to fully participate in and benefit from any resource development that is near their communities or in their communities.

This is an unprecedented opportunity for all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples.

The post Oral Questions – Natural Resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.

These town halls are an opportunity for Elizabeth to meet her constituents and hear about their concerns and priorities. As well, she updates constituents about her actions and work in the House of Commons on their behalf.

These clips are from Elizabeth’s town hall on Mayne Island in January 2013.

Arctic Ice Melt

[GZhOp07IDhc]

FIPA

[_6Tb2cfOOsg]

Marine Conservation

[zLE5oLp4tHQ]

Omnibus Amendments

[4LW7vzfzIXs]

Kinder Morgan Pipeline

[dtyEqFgjqIQ]

Resource Development

[6kut_Ub6ti4]

The post Mayne Island Town Hall Videos appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Tragically, as with so many issues relating to our environment, this is a day to remind ourselves of the threats to and recent attacks on this very critical natural resource.

“Canada has no national strategy to address very urgent water issues facing our society,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands. “Our Federal Water Policy is more than 20 years old and has never been implemented. We need to make use of its excellent guidelines immediately in order to deal with the impact of climate change, contamination, shortages, pressures to bulk export, and more.”

In May, 2012, a report by the Forum for Leadership on Water, a group of academic, NGO, and retired public-sector experts on water policy, stated that decades of policy and funding neglect had left Canada “crippled,” as it confronts growing threats to its water.

Since then, the situation has grown worse with the Conservatives’ aggressive promotion of the extraction industries, leading to the end of credible environmental assessments, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, and the virtual elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act – which leaves the great majority of our lakes and rivers vulnerable to development.

Even the Great Lakes are at risk. “The Great Lakes, which hold more than 95 percent of North America’s surface freshwater – 20 percent of the world’s – are continuously threatened by climate change pollution, over-extraction, invasive species, and wetland loss,” said Cathy MacLellan, Green Party Energy and Natural Resource Critic. “As the south and mid-western US continues to experience severe water shortages, the shared Great Lakes and Canada’s other fresh water resources are vulnerable to weak legislation concerning bulk water exports.”

Recent reports that Lake Erie is in trouble again, after having nearly died and then being revived in the 1970s, are disturbing. Earlier this year, Lake Winnipeg was given the title of Threatened Lake of 2013 – the most threatened lake in the world – by the Global Nature Fund (GNF). It is being poisoned by blue-green algae feeding off sewage and agricultural chemicals.

At the same time, small freshwater lakes are being used as toxic dumps. The Fisheries Minister has allowed certain lakes to be reclassified as ‘tailings impoundment areas. This absolves mining companies from having to build man-made containment ponds designed to protect natural water systems, and fish.

Our wetlands, too, are in danger. “Canada has about 25 percent of the world’s wetlands – lakes, rivers, swamps, wet grasslands, peatlands,” said Janice Harvey, Green Party Fisheries Critic. “Historically, we have played a key role internationally in protecting them. With the gutting of the Fisheries Act and the aggressive expansion of the Alberta tar sands this is no longer the case.”

“Our freshwater is in a fragile state for a variety of reasons, which might have been adequately dealt with before climate change,” said May. “Now, the fight to stop the rise in temperatures globally is crucial to saving this resource for future generations.”

The post UN World Water Day: Canada’s Water at Risk appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is dismissing claims by the Green party that the government plans to fold Environment Canada into the Natural Resources Department.

Harper calls the claim ”misinformation,” although he has not outright denied plans were in the works to combine the two departments.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May says credible sources within the government have told her party of the merger plans.

View the full original article >>

The post Harper rejects Green claims of Environment, Natural Resources merger appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Surely there is more that Canada can do. I agree that it is spectacular in our history that through the entire uprising of the Cuba Revolution, which led to Fidel Castro becoming president of Cuba, we never closed our embassy in that whole time. We maintained consistent relations. I think that is something of which many Canadians can be proud, and surely now we could be the country in the hemisphere that says, in agreement with most of Latin America, that the U.S. has this wrong and that it is time to say that Cuba should be part of the Summit of the Americas so that we can have the kind of dialogue that takes place on a regional basis.

I would also suggest to my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary that the way in which we are currently embracing China means that our forthright advocacy for human rights and religious freedoms in China is taking a back seat to offering them up our resources as we offer ourselves as a compliant resource colony instead of as a partner that pushes for human rights.

Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear to my colleague and friend on the other side: the policy that we have towards Cuba is made in Canada, not in the U.S.A. This is our policy.

The member is absolutely right that we have not closed our mission and we have not closed diplomatic relations with Cuba. Thousands and thousands of Canadians go every day to Cuba; Cuba is a destination of choice for many Canadians.

In reference to China, the member talked about human rights and the sale of natural resources that she is claiming we are going to be selling off. Let me be very clear that the government engages with China on all issues of human rights. Whenever we meet with them, we talk bilaterally about issues of human rights and bring them to the Chinese leader.

Again, engaging with the Chinese leader is more important. As far as the resources are concerned, let me be very clear: they will comply with the investment act of Canada, not the investment act of China. They will follow our rules, our regulations, and that would become a key element, should that happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to answer the questions.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – Foreign Affairs appeared first on Elizabeth May.