Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal platform, it was promised that there would be action on the changes that Stephen Harper made in the omnibus budget bills, particularly the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, their platform said, “We will review these changes, restore lost protections, and incorporate more modern safeguards.” Unfortunately, the transport committee came to egregiously weak conclusions, recommending, essentially, keeping in place the Harper regime. Can the Prime Minister commit to restoring protections to Canada’s navigable waters?

Justin Trudeau – Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, as a government, and personally as a paddler, we are committed to promoting Canada’s sustainable economic development while maintaining a safe transportation system and the protection of our lakes and rivers. Therefore, absolutely, we will consider all input from the independent House of Commons committee on transport, from the public, from indigenous peoples, from provinces and territories, and from a broad range of stakeholders including industry and marine-protection groups. This is something that we feel passionately about and are glad to be moving forward on.

The post Parliament: Will Canada’s lakes and rivers remain unprotected under weak Transport Committee recommendations? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

By Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Green MP Bruce Hyer

What is an environmental issue? However you define it, Harper is against it.

“Environment” means different things to different people.

To some, it is the natural world for which conservation values will protect sustainable populations and ecosystems for future generations. The roots of that conservation ethic go back to the late 1800s, and Gifford Pinchot, the first dean of Yale School of Forestry. The ethic embraces “sustainable use” of forests and fish and the renewable resources that have supported economies.

Then, there’s the more modern concept of environment, stemming from Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, published in 1962 and credited with helping launch the environmental movement in the U.S. The 1960s era of environmental awareness was actually more concerned with how human activity and new technologies-in this case toxic synthetic pesticides-threatened species, but perhaps more significantly, human health as well. Now that the publication of Silent Spring has passed the 50-year mark, it hardly is “modern” anymore. Our current use of the term “environment” has increasingly been subsumed in the media into one issue only-climate change.

Yet, climate change is not primarily an environmental issue. Sure, it involves the environment. In the same way drowning involves water, but we do not describe drowning as a “water issue.” Climate change, like drowning, is a survival issue. Climate change is an issue that can be described best as a security threat-although it involves questions of energy, economy, and the environment.

The harsh reality of our current political climate is that all the basic notions of the environment are under assault. We have entered a political era of “decision-based evidence making.” Stephen Harper’s administration has launched an unprecedented assault on government science. More than 2,000 scientists and researchers in the federal civil service have lost their jobs. Most of these scientists were working in areas of the “environment.”

All the scientists working in our national parks have been laid off. Fisheries and Oceans has lost all its habitat specialists after Bill C-38 gutted the Fisheries Act to remove habitat protection. The entire Marine Contaminants Program at DFO has been eliminated. The list is long. Mr. Harper is not just neglecting science; he is attacking any science or data or evidence that runs contrary to his beliefs or agenda.

Meanwhile, even though the only legislative change Harper has made to the Species at Risk Act was to remove the application of SARA when a pipeline is involved (also in C-38), still SARA is being more broadly undermined. Species at risk are going unprotected.

National parks no longer exclude oil and gas activity (with the tragic circumstances of the creation of Sable Island National Park.) This could be the thin end of the wedge for industrial activity in parks, in general. Meanwhile, parks are being privatized piecemeal, as is clear from the Jasper National Park “ice walk,” the Banff hot springs, and now a hotel proposal inside the national park in Jasper. Harper may have expanded national park boundaries, but he has endangered the protection of what lies inside the boundaries.

The pressure to clear away any regulatory hurdles to oil and gas expansion has led to the wholesale dismantling of decades’ worth of environmental laws and regulation. From legislation passed under prime minister John A. Macdonald (Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act) to laws passed under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, (the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and National Round Table on Environment and Economy), nothing is sacred. The last eight years bear witness to a devastating reversal of environmental law in Canada. It needs to be said that Canada’s laws never were as strong in environmental protection as those of the U.S. or other industrialized countries, such as Germany. In the race for the bottom, Canada has no competition.

Nowhere is the abdication of environmental responsibility as disturbing as in the area of climate change. Harper first cancelled our legally binding Kyoto targets, then withdrew from the treaty, adopted his own targets for GHG reductions in Copenhagen in 2009, and has now declared those will not be met either. True, he has not actually declared his rejection of his own targets, but the new timeline for oil and gas regulations, first promised when John Baird was environment minister nearly seven years ago (The “Turning the Corner” plan), make it clear no real effort is contemplated.

We all use oil. We will for a long time to come, but it must be used wisely, and we should all seek to reduce our consumption as much as possible, and shift to more renewable and sustainable energy sources. The sad and dispiriting irony is that if Canada embraced real action, we will create more jobs and revitalize our economy faster than by pursuing the mindless vision that puts all our eggs in the bitumen basket. Canada deserves better. We deserve an energy plan, a climate plan, and the new industrial revolution of clean-tech and renewables. We can still get there from here. The first step is for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to get out of the way.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich- Gulf Islands, B.C., and Green Party MP Bruce Hyer represents Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.

Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Climate change also a security threat appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Among the more than 160 signatories nations to the Ramsar Convention, Canada has the largest area of wetlands – about 25 percent of the world’s total,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“Because these natural systems help purify water, prevent flooding, provide habitat, and, probably most important, store carbon, we owe it to ourselves and the world to protect them. Sadly, the Harper Conservatives are doing the opposite,” added May.

May pointed out a number of recent changes to Canadian laws which will have a negative impact on our wetlands: the gutting of the Fisheries Act so that it now protects certain fish rather than all habitat; the destruction of the Environmental Assessment Act, and replacing the Navigable Waters Protection Act with the Navigation Protection Act – which now protects only 65 rivers and 97 lakes across Canada from development.

At the same time, Stephen Harper’s plans to aggressively expand the oil sands will further destroy the great peatlands of northern Alberta. Contrary to Conservative and oil industry assurances, top scientists have revealed that these plundered lands can never be restored.

The post Green Party Celebrates World Wetlands Day appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Did the support of 24 per cent of the electorate on election day give the federal government a mandate for its radical project to gut environmental protection? Apparently. In our apathy-inducing first-past-the-post political system a small minority can translate into a big majority, which can disregard public opinion and do whatever it wants.

Here is a list of what the feds have accomplished so far in their three-pronged environmental strategy of deregulation, cutting information and research and targeting dissenting voices:

1. Eliminated Canada’s international commitment to mitigate climate change, including the repeal of the 2007 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
2. Undermined global climate negotiations to avoid climate action.
3. Failed to create a plan to address climate change.
4. Eliminated energy conservation and efficiency and renewable energy funding while continuing subsidies to fossil fuels.
5. Eliminated funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.
6. Eliminated the climate adaptation research group within Environment Canada.
7. Eliminated scientists in Natural Resources Canada to study ice core data.
8. Cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Environment Canada.
9. Repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, weakening the federal environmental assessment process.
10. Eliminated accepted criteria for compulsory environmental assessments, leaving such reviews to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment and political appointees.
11. Eliminated the jobs of hundreds of scientists working for various government departments that focus on the environment and wildlife.
12. Weakened elements of the Species at Risk Act.
13. Amended the Species at Risk Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act to allow the National Energy Board to assume jurisdiction of endangered species or navigable waters in the way of any pipeline.
14. Allowing the federal cabinet, rather than the National Energy Board, to make decisions about approvals for major pipeline projects.
15. Introduced cuts to ozone monitoring.
16. Ended monitoring of smoke stack emissions.
17. Eliminated the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.
18. Weakened the Fisheries Act in the areas of habitat protection and eliminated the marine contaminants program.
19. Fired all DFO habitat officers in British Columbia.
20. Killed the Navigable Waters Protection Act, replacing it with the Navigation Protection Act, which effectively makes major pipeline and interprovincial power line projects exempt from requirements for proponents to prove they wouldn’t damage navigable waterways.
21. Reduced federal protection of waterways to a small number of water bodies and rivers.
22. Parks Canada no longer has to conduct periodic environmental audits or management plan reviews.
23. Eliminated funding for the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment.
24. Eliminated support for the Experimental Lakes Program.
25. Eliminated funding for a dozen Arctic science research stations. Closed the Polar Arctic and Environmental Laboratory and the Yukon Research Lab.
26. Started privatization and eliminated ecological staff positions in National Parks.
27. Made a systemic effort to cut research, information and analysis with respect to environmental issues.
28. Attacked environmental and First Nations organizations for critiquing resource development.
29. Provided the Canada Revenue Agency with an extra $8 million to crack down on environmental charities.
30. Provided oil companies with unprecedented access to senior government leaders.
31. Muzzled government scientists who have been conducting research on various climate and environmental issues.
32. Cut funding to the Network on Women’s Health and the Environment.
33. Cut funding of the Canadian Environmental Network.
34. In addition to changing the definition of “aboriginal fishery” in the Fisheries Act, without consulting First Nations governments introduced changes to the Indian Act designed to make it faster and easier for First Nations to “take advantage of economic opportunities” by leasing designated reserve lands based on a majority of votes from those in attendance at a meeting or in a referendum, instead of waiting for a majority vote from all eligible voters.
35. Gave the aboriginal affairs minister the authority to call a band meeting or referendum for the purpose of considering a surrender of the band’s territory.
36. The minister can accept or refuse the land designation after receiving a resolution from the band council.
37. Eliminated the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, the Indian Head Tree Nursery and the PFRA pasture management program on millions of acres of sensitive grasslands.
38. Provided unprecedented support to industries to exploit natural resources with minimal environmental oversight.

Originally printed in the Star Pheonix.

The post Feds systematically gut environmental protection appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Glenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I really do wish I could figure that riddle out. When we are looking at 97 lakes and 62 rivers that are being protected right across the country, that is not even half of the lakes and rivers that are in my own city.

We call our city the city of lakes. We have done a great job in Sudbury of re-greening. If we look at how we used to smelt and how we used to mine, I am very proud of my community and what we have been able to do to change. I take my kids swimming right in downtown Sudbury. We fish there. People have drinking water there. Unfortunately, the millions of lakes right across our country, which we are so proud of, are no longer being protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That is shameful, because it truly is scary what kind of country we will be leaving for our kids if the government continues to go down this path.

The post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The hon. member for Western Arctic spoke directly to the Hay River situation and the fact that it was a very busy port that required regulation over navigation. I wonder if he would like to return to that point if it were not understood the first time.

Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, yes, we did refer solely to rivers in the Northwest Territories that we engage in navigation on. Those were removed from the act. Those were the only ones that I spoke to.

The post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This is a big country and the reality of what the current government has done is an appalling assault of negative action for protecting our wilderness and the air and water that we need to live.

Pierre-Luc Dusseault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the Green Party leader a question about the Conservative Party’s intentions regarding the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in Bill C-45.

Can she tell us what she thinks is behind those changes? Personally, I think those changes are meant to speed up the pipeline approval process and ensure that there is no legislation standing in the way of that development.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

In my view, the motivation behind the huge changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to eliminate the protection of most of Canada’s lakes, rivers and waterways. It is not meant only for pipelines, because before Bill C-38 was passed, developers had to obtain a permit issued by Transport Canada for any pipelines that went through navigable waters. Since Bill C-38 was passed, pipelines are no longer included in the groups known as works and undertakings.

Pipelines were specifically excluded in Bill C-38.

The decision in Bill C-45 to reduce the protection of navigable waters has to do with mines, dams and all other aspects that present a danger to Canada’s waterways.

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

With some to be moved this Thursday and the remainder the following Tuesday during C-45’s last day of debate at Report Stage, the amendments offer comprehensive policy responses to the Bill’s most worrying changes.

“As with Bill C-38, our approach to Bill C-45 has been to offer up specific and substantive changes that we would like to see made this legislation, and our amendments have been focused on quality over quantity”, explained May. “And while there is much in the Bill with which I disagree, there are nonetheless some positive changes for which the government deserves some credit, such as closing loopholes for tax evaders and phasing out wasteful subsidies for fossil fuel exploration”.

On Thursday morning, Elizabeth May will speak to Bill C-45 and to her amendments in the House of Commons, at which point a policy backgrounder will also be made available on the Green Party website. A few key highlights of the proposed changes include:

• Maintaining the important Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit
• Reestablishing historical protections for all Canada’s rivers and lakes by the federal government
• Defending our tourism industry by limiting the application of the Electronic Travel Authorization Program to specific security threats
• Ensuring that Aboriginal treaty rights are explicitly protected in the definition of “aboriginal fisheries”
• Standing up for small grain producers by ensuring inspections are not carried out by big agribusiness firms with conflicts of interest

“I am hopeful that the government will consider adopting some of the amendments that I’ve proposed to this Bill, including those designed to ensure Canada remains productive and our tourism industry strong amidst difficult economic conditions”, said May.

“However, Bill C-45 is yet another massive omnibus Bill and, especially considering Mr. Harper’s majority government and use of time allocation to limit debate, reflects an extremely undemocratic means of passing legislation. And since the Prime Minister appears blind to the fact that Canadians reject his cynical approach to governing, the opposition parties are prepared to hold him to account and I anticipate another long night of voting this coming Tuesday.”

The post Elizabeth May to Speak to Budget Omnibus Bill C-45, Table Amendments appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ne9Vyq_QuCg]

Their voices were joined with water activists and MPs at a press conference held just before the second, 400-plus-page, omnibus budget-implementation bill, C-45, returns to the House of Commons.  Buried deep in that bill is the replacement of the 130-year-old NWPA with the Navigation Protection Act.

“This is an assault on our history, our safety, and our basic right to be informed,” stated singer-songwriter Sarah Harmer.  “Canadians’ waterways need protection, and the changes to the Navigable Waters Act remove that protection on the majority of our river and lake systems. This puts them and us at grave risk.”

“Our Federal Government is relieving itself of its duty to protect the rights of all Canadians to navigate every lake and river in Canada,” said Meredith Brown, Riverkeeper and Executive Director. “Eliminating public consultation and parliamentary review for something as important and Canadian as our public right to access water is a huge mistake.”

“Canadians expect our government to protect nature,” added John Bennett, Executive-Director, Sierra Club Canada.  “This government has no mandate to sell out the future for a few dollars today.”

[eVwqsX06CIw]

“Killing the NWPA is nothing less than an assault on Canada’s natural heritage,” said Independent MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North), an avid paddler and fisherman. “It will mean millions of streams, lakes, rivers, and other waterways will lose their protection under the law and can be dammed or in-filled without environmental oversight.  It is now open season on spawning grounds, natural aquatic nurseries, as well as creeks and streams teeming with fish and other aquatic life.”

“Just as they did with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act, the Harper Conservatives are removing another legal barrier to their development-at-all-costs agenda,” stated Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Island.  “They are counting on Canadians being overwhelmed by the enormous Bill C-45 and not noticing the elimination of the NWPA, but I’m sure cottagers, municipalities, the tourism industry, and others will soon be making their opposition to the Navigation Protection Act known.”

In statements read out at the press conference, Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip noted:  “… Our claim to Canada’s rivers is older than the country itself.  For the last four years, the government has been trying to find a way to pry that claim from the hands of all citizens and reserve it for a select few. If this new law passes, they finally get their wish …”

Leslie Feist, singer-songwriter warned: “ … If we lose the protection of the NWPA, we lose our opportunity to study ungoverned and unaccountable development’s possible impacts to fish, wildlife, communities, and lives. It leaves our waters open to exploitation by the first person to get there with a backhoe.”

Mark Mattson, President & Lake Ontario Waterkeeper: ”… By removing “water” from the “Navigable Waters Protection Act”, the government is removing all meaning from one of our oldest laws. I don’t think they truly understand the repercussions their actions will have. People will be hurt out there.”

The full statements are available online.

The post Top Musicians, Water Advocates, MPs Oppose Elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.