Debate has been about how best to export raw, virtually unprocessed bitumen — as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the eastern half of Canada depends on imports of foreign oil from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Norway. As Gordon Laxer of the Parkland Institute tried to point out to a Parliamentary committee (before the Conservative chair ordered him to stop talking and stormed out of the room), Canada has no energy security.

I feel some responsibility for this shift in debate, as I was the first political leader to point out that there was something wrong with the picture.

RELATED: Sign the petition for an oil-free coast.

Unlike the US, we have no Strategic Petroleum Reserves. If there was a blockade of foreign oil or an economic embargo, those in Eastern Canada would have to wait for tankers to bring them bitumen for processing through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard. As bizarre as that sounds, it was the solution offered by a Suncor executive when asked in committee about the vulnerability of eastern Canada to embargos.

Oppositional Canada

The irony is that the dividing line of foreign oil to the east and Alberta oil for the west was the result of deliberate government policy—aimed at helping the Alberta oil and gas sector. Back in 1961, the National Oil Policy decreed that eastern Canadians (east of the Ottawa River) would only receive imported oil while those in the West had to purchase Alberta product. By deliberate policy, Eastern Canadians became dependent on foreign oil, while Alberta oil was consumed by those in western provinces and exported to the US. Now it is time to think like a country.

The Solution: Shipping East?

However, the current proposal also makes no sense. Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna has proposed shipping unprocessed bitumen to St John, New Brunswick, to put it in tankers to export it from there. Others are proposing refining it in New Brunswick.

The first decision point is Enbridge’s application to reverse its Number 9 pipeline. This pipeline was built in the 1970s and had originally flowed west to east. It was reversed in the 1990s as the markets favoured cheaper foreign oil.

Now, Enbridge is applying to reverse it once again, running a different product, dilbit, from west to east. The request to the National Energy Board is being considered in two stand-alone applications; Line 9A (Sarnia to North Westover) and Line 9B to Montreal.

From there the bitumen would likely go south through New England. When I was in Washington DC, I heard from quite a few Congressmen and Senators that they do not want those pipelines over their territory.

Bitumen

The nature of bitumen and diluents in pipelines is a critical issue in why the Green Party oppose pipelines of unprocessed product to either coastline. So, before talking about the direction of pipelines, we need to talk about the product.

Even after the extensive and intensive process of extracting the viscous material known as bitumen from the soil in which it is found (generally about 10% by volume), it is still not processed to even the level of crude oil. Crude oil can flow. Bitumen cannot. It has the consistency of peanut butter, so needs to be mixed with something else to flow. That something else is called ‘diluent’—a mix of undisclosed chemicals. The most commonly used diluent is a natural gas condensate, similar to Naptha. The public does not know the make-up of any particular diluent. Some have more benzene than others—benzene is a well-documented carcinogen.

The resulting so-called dilbit product is about 30% diluents and 70% bitumen. We do know a lot more about dilbit than we used to. And we did a lot of that learning through the 2010 Enbridge dilbit spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. We know it both floats and sinks; that it is far harder and far more expensive to clean-up than unprocessed conventional crude. The Kalamazoo spill is still not cleaned up.

Meanwhile a debate rages about whether dilbit is more likely to cause pipeline failure. Cornell University found that between 2007 and 2010 pipelines carrying dilbit had a spill-rate three times higher than pipelines carrying conventional crude. Oil sands products have a higher sulfur and a higher acidic content than conventional crude and those properties could explain its increased corrosive nature.

This finding led to the Department of Natural Resources to commissioning a study by a group called Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (ATIF). That study compared dilbit and conventional crudes and concluded the types of corrosive compounds between the two products were comparable. So we have labwork versus the real life rate of spills in US pipelines. At the moment, despite what Harper’s Cabinet ministers claim, the science on the corrosive nature of dilbit is not settled.

Meanwhile, if local residents along the Number 9 pipeline wish to speak before the NEB hearings, or even submit a letter, they are required to fill out a 10-page form, and are also encouraged to submit references and a resume! This is an NEB effort to meet the new requirements imposed by the horrific overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that took place last year in the Omnibus Budget Bill (C-38).

Unlike the previous CEAA, which was premised on a fundamental commitment to rights of public participation, the Harperized CEAA restricts access to only those ‘directly affected’. The NEB has made this restriction even worse by demanding that any citizens who want to make comments, fill out the forms and apply within a two-week period—which will close before this article will be in print.

Refineries In Alberta

So, what should be done? The best environmental, economic and climate outcome would be to slow down the boom-and-bust cycle of constant expansion in the oil sands. What the late Peter Lougheed used to describe as the ‘traffic jam’ of feverish expansion in the oilsands prevents the construction of ancillary infrastructure, like upgraders and refineries.

The hyper-inflationary bubble that sits on northern Alberta is what makes it cheaper for Big Oil to build a $7 billion pipeline to Texas, rather than build facilities in Alberta. Any reasonable carbon plan would set a level of managed growth for oil sands production—say 2 million barrels of oil a day (more than the current 1.7 million barrels, but less than Harper’s goal of 6 million barrels of oil a day). That level of production could cool down the capital and labour markets enough to build upgraders and refineries near the resource. Then, we could be talking about shipping—by pipeline, truck or train—a finished product whose properties are better understood. Shipping a product with a far lower risk of environmental impact in the event of spills.

If we are thinking like a country, we should get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, but we should not ship bitumen + diluents.

The post Pipelines to the east? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The second point is that for all that CETA has more attention than the Canada-China Investment Treaty, it does not have enough either.

Unlike the Canada-China Investment Treaty, this trade deal is one the Prime Minister has not kept under a barrel.  It has already been over-hyped by PMO with Stephen Harper claiming the deal will bring $12 billion worth of benefit toCanada. Even though this figure was called into question by an assessment conducted by the European Commission, a study that put the benefits at a more conservative $3-6 billion, Mr. Harper continues to use the exaggerated figure.

The proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (known as CETA) is an ambitious attempt to cover huge aspects of our economy – impacting health care costs, supply management in agriculture, procurement, arts and culture to name a few.  As well, like the Canada-China Investment Treaty it would create opportunities for arbitration for claims for the EU investors against Canada and vice versa. It has been on a three year negotiation track with the goal of concluding negotiations by the end of this year. But Matthias Brinkmann, head of the European Union Delegation to Canada, thinks the deadline may not be met.  Speaking in Halifax on October 22, 2012,  Brinkmann confirmed that little to no progress has been made on most of the key issues.  The issues identified as among those Brinkmann describes as leaving the most difficult until last include patent protection for pharmaceuticals, procurement rules for public projects, supply management in agriculture, rules of origin and investor-state provisions.

That’s a long list to get done by the end of this year.  And then there’s the approval process.  The EU must vote to approve and so must each parliament of the 27 member states. And some member states are already angry with Canada over more restrictive Visa requirements (Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria) and quite a lot of parliamentarians, certainly all those in green Parties in the EU Parliament itself, as well as Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Italy, to name a few, are concerned about Canada’s efforts to over-turn the Carbon Fuel Standard, disrupt global climate negotiations, undermine the Kyoto Protocol,  our appalling obstruction in June 2011 at the Rotterdam Convention asbestos discussions, to name a few.  Even if this agreement were negotiated between Canada and the EU, approval is far from a sure thing.  One thing the Prime Minister cares about (CETA) could be sabotaged by his record on things he thought didn’t matter (Kyoto, climate, asbestos).

Take it as read that the Green Party will support the civil society groups that are opposed to higher prices for pharmaceutical drugs by granting greater patent protection to EU Big Pharma. We will oppose any agreement that undermines our ability to ensure municipal water systems remain public, or that undercut the Canadian arts and culture sector.  We will insist that any new trade agreement be about fair trade and a fair deal for Canadians.

There is no need to rush the negotiations to a desperate last push this year.  Given the EU approval process, it is more important to get the right deal than a rushed deal.

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

The post Get the right deal, not a rushed deal appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On paper this looks like we should have energy security, but the oil is not distributed evenly.  Oil from Hibernia on the East Coast is exported, as is Athabasca bitumen crude.  Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces rely on oil from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia.  In fact, 100% of the oil used in Quebec and the four Atlantic Provinces is imported.

In hearings before the House Natural Resources Committee, I heard executives from the oil industry say that if there was a disruption of supply to get oil to Eastern Canada, they could send tankers down through the Panama Canal to get to Eastern Canada. The U.S. also has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure security of supply.  Does anyone find it odd that Canada does not?  I think we should have a plan to ensure energy security for Canada.  To do so, we would need to reverse some existing pipeline flows and invest in upgrading some of the existing pipeline infrastructure.

The post Is Canada an Energy Superpower? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The irony is that if Canada continues to ship out bitumen crude as fast as humanly possible, it is Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that must continue to depend on imports from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. Fifty-five per cent of the oil used in Canada is imported. Meanwhile, bitumen crude is shipped to other countries for processing.

Every barrel of crude shipped out of Canada ships out jobs with it. The distortions from the Conservatives on the question of oilsands expansion, raw product export and risky tanker traffic keep trying to limit discussion to environment versus economy. The truth is that it is not in Canada’s interests — in terms of energy security, the environment or the economy — to follow the Harper agenda.

Elizabeth May
MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader, Green Party of Canada

View the full original article >>

The post Harper agenda not good for country appeared first on Elizabeth May.

These are weapons that have been used in the commission of crimes, such as the Norwegian bloodbath which occurred in the summer. I am wondering if the hon. member can speak to the increased risk to public safety from these weapons becoming delisted.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, there is a great risk to all Canadians if this gun registry is disbanded.

While I have the time, I want to read from another email that I received. Jason wrote:

I am writing you this letter in regards to vote to continue debate over [the long gun registry]. I am asking that you vote to continue the debate, and give yourself more time to hear the comments from your constituents.

I consulted with my constituents in all parts of my riding. The member for Portage—Lisgar was in my riding, in a hotbed of hunters in Cache Bay for a meeting on the long gun registry. Eighteen people showed up. This is a gun registry hotbed. Seven people were for the gun registry, two were my people, and that leaves 11 people.

What happened after this debate is that my polling numbers went up. The member came back a second time to my riding, to Sudbury, for the same thing. Again, my polling numbers went up. At the end of the day I beat my nearest opponent, the Conservative candidate, by 50%. I am very proud of the fact that I voted to keep the gun registry.

The post Long-Gun Registry appeared first on Elizabeth May.

That is not to say we have no policy priorities related to energy. The de facto energy policy of the Harper government is the rapid expansion of the Athabasca tar sands (or ‘oil sands’ if you have gone through the Alberta re-education programme). From the current 1.3 million barrels of crude oil a day, the Harper government has set a goal of 6 million barrels of crude a day. This rapid expansion is destined for export.

It will be exported as crude, because oil companies find it too expensive to refine the crude near the bitumen. That is because the ‘hell bent for leather’ approach to development creates a localized hyper-inflationary bubble all around Fort McMurray and through most of Alberta. Former Premier Peter Lougheed calls it ‘the traffic jam.’ You cannot find a skilled labour force, or materials, at a reasonable price, so we allow the crude to flow through pipelines from Alberta to reach the United States where refineries are being built to convert tar sands crude to petroleum. And, we have discovered, two super tankers a week depart Vancouver, through treacherous channels to the Juan de Fuca Strait and out to other nations. Crude oil exports pass right by the Gulf Islands every week—and Kinder-Morgan plans to expand to ten tankers a week.

Funny thing to be an ‘energy super power,’ yet still import 54% of the oil used in Canada. All of Eastern Canada depends on oil from OPEC nations. We have no Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We lack any infrastructure to get tar sands crude to the rest of Canada.

Funny thing to be an ‘energy super power’ that is allowing the rampant expansion of the tar sands to undermine the economic health of Canada. I first learned of the increasing warnings of ‘Dutch Disease’ through the 2008 Report on Canada from the OECD. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is an elite club of the world’s wealthiest nations. Canada is a member. From its lavish Paris headquarters, the OECD economists analyze the performance of nations and issue annual updates. It was in the 2008 report that the OECD first warned that the intense concentration of economic and political activity on the tar sands was actually hurting the Canadian economy overall.

This is due to a well-known phenomenon first experienced in the Netherlands. When the Netherlands discovered rich off-shore natural gas, the boom in production had the effect of increasing the value of the Dutch guilder. It did this to such a degree that the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands was devastated. Exports cost too much. While one part of the economy was doing well—other portions were suffering. This became known as Dutch Disease.

Norway avoided it by taking all the oil and gas revenues out of circulation and putting them in a heritage fund. Despite the fact that Norway patterned its plan on Peter Lougheed’s vision, Ralph Klein cancelled the vision. Alberta now has $14 billion in a heritage fund and is in deficit. Canada came down with Dutch Disease. In fact, some economists estimate that for every job created in the oil sands, another was lost elsewhere in Canada. Well before the September 2008 recession, Canada had lost over 300,000 jobs in manufacturing and nearly 100,000 more in pulp and paper. In order to rebalance the Canadian economy, the OECD recommended a go-slow approach in the tar sands and the implementation of a national carbon tax. The carbon tax, plus cutting subsidies to fossil fuel production (an estimated $2.8 billion/year in Canada), would have the effect of slowing down tar sands development, getting the Canadian dollar unplugged from the price of a barrel of oil, as well as helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week, the International Energy Agency made essentially the same observations about Canada’s skewed economic picture and offered the same prescription: slow down tar sands development, kill fossil fuel subsidies and put in place a price for carbon. (See ‘World Energy Outlook, 2010,’ IEA.)

The astonishing thing about this global debate on Canada’s economic health and the extent to which it is undermined by the tar sands is that Canadians do not even know the debate is taking place. We continue to swallow the outrageous whopper that the tar sands are an engine of growth for the whole country.

And when we do discuss the tar sands, we have a nonsense debate presented as a zero sum game of ‘shut them down’ or ‘keep them.’ Instead, we should be asking if we should develop the tar sands beyond the current 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, and if so, how? And should we allow expansion in the absence of a national energy strategy?So here we are—the alleged ‘energy super power’— wasting more than half of the energy we burn, exporting to beat the band while importing 54% of what we use, canceling the support for renewable energy, while protecting the taxpayer subsidies to the wealthiest companies on earth. Thanks to the demonized Trudeau National Energy Plan, decades later, we are operating ad hoc. We have gone from ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’ to ‘scrapers of bitumen and wasters of water’ and our economy is getting distorted in the process.

Let’s start using those dangerous words—‘national’ ‘energy’ and ‘strategy’—in the same sentence again. Let’s push for a sensible energy plan for all Canadians.

Elizabeth May, Order of Canada, is the Leader of the Green Party of Canada and nominated candidate for Saanich Gulf Islands.

The post Energy policy anyone? appeared first on Elizabeth May.