If they have money, we have a different approach. It is a carefully executed piece of hypocrisy that requires a sanctimonious tone. The listener is somehow to suspend disbelief in the face of a counter-intuitive advanced wisdom, which is this: ‘If we are really concerned about human rights, the best way to secure improvements is through trade and forging relationships with countries that abuse human rights.’ Over and over again, Canadian governments have advocated that trading with China will cause China to absorb, as if through some mercantile osmosis, Canadian values.

No set of diplomatic criteria drove Stephen Harper to refuse to meet with Cuba in the room, while courting Communist China. If Cuba had all the money, our prime minister would be smoking cigars in Havana every chance he got.

It was not always so. Former Prime Minister Mulroney led the charge to enforce sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Against the indomitable Iron Lady herself, Mulroney succeeded in getting South Africa ejected from the Commonwealth.

It was former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who first argued we had to trade to improve human rights as he inked a nuclear deal with the butcher of Beijing, so-called for his role in the Tiananmen Square massacre. On November 26, 1996, Chrétien made a quick visit to Shanghai and clowned around with former Chinese Premier Li Peng. Coverage of the visit noted that replying to Amnesty International’s criticism, ‘the prime minister responds that quiet diplomacy and stronger trade ties are the best way to promote political liberalization.’ (Jim Brown, ‘China deal warms China ties, sparks hot attack,’ November 27, 1996, Canadian Press.)

That nuclear deal is highly significant in light of Bill C-38. The 1996 CANDU deal marked the first time that in order to accommodate China, Canada violated its own environmental assessment laws, and, retroactively, weakened them.

In order to get China to buy two CANDU reactors, Canada lent China $1.5 billion. This was, at the time, the largest external loan in the history of Canada. The use of federal money triggered an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (as it was before C-38.) On discovering they had accidentally triggered a mandatory environmental review, the Cabinet met in a hasty late night session and passed a regulation to change the review of projects outside Canada. In January 1997, the Sierra Club of Canada, of which I was Executive Director at the time, launched a court challenge against evading environmental assessment law to accommodate the Chinese government.

Here we are, fifteen years later, and China still does not like our environmental assessment laws. According to a 2010 report, Canada’s environmental assessment laws are a barrier to greater Chinese investment (Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canada-China: Building a Strong Economic Partnership, July 2010.) In the 2010 Conservative budget implementation bill environmental reviews were weakened to accommodate China.

In the House, explaining why Bill C-38 must be passed, the Prime Minister said it was in order ‘to provide certainty to investors.’ (May 10, 2012). What investors would those be?

In the last few years direct ownership of Alberta oil sands by Chinese state-owned oil companies has gone from nearly nothing to over $12 billion. Chinese money is already invested in the Enbridge pipeline and tanker scheme, Petro-China wants to build the pipeline, and Suncor is talking about using lowerwaged Chinese temporary workers–just in time to drive down wages and environmental standards. Sinopec is the fifth largest corporation in the world with a board of directors appointed by the Chinese Communist polit-bureau. And now Sinopec’s 9% share in Syncrude has given it veto power over any future decision to refine Syncrude bitumen in Canada, rather than put it in tankers.

‘The servility of Canada’s political leaders…to the obvious manipulations of Chinese strategists who flaunt world trade and financial market principles and jail democracy–promoting authors for 10-year terms is a national disgrace.’ That quote was cited by Victoria writer Terry Glavin, who added, ‘It wasn’t some dweebish umbrage-taker from the Kitsilano Civil Liberties Union who wrote those words. It was Tony Campbell, the former head of the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat for the Privy Council Office.’ (‘China has our forests, now we’re sending our oilfields too,’ National Post, January 17, 2012).

So, back to that wonderful transmission of values through trade. Does anyone else notice that it seems to be working? Canada is absorbing Chinese values respecting human rights, labour laws, and environmental protections. It is indeed a national disgrace.

The post Values that rub off appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The IJC nuclear task force undertook an inventory of nuclear pollutants in the Great Lakes in 1997 indicating that there was a need for greater follow up on many concerns identified.   (http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/invrep/index.html)

“Given the history of concerns about nuclear contaminants including Port Hope on Lake Ontario, and decades of nuclear waste storage on the shores of the Great Lakes at various nuclear facilities, the Green Party demands a scientific and citizen partnership to provide oversight of these impacts on water quality,” said Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The IJC in its Report of Bioaccumulation of Elements to Accompany the Inventory of Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin identified the need for further work.  http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/nuclear/bio/index.html

“The Green Party is joining the call from a number of concerned citizens and environmental groups to urge this government to take a serious look at radioactive impacts on Great Lakes water quality,’ said May.

The IJC has responded to requests from various groups stating that it will not re-instate the nuclear task force until it is directed by governments to do so.

“Protection of the Great Lakes must be a top priority.  The government has a legal duty to ensure that it protects water quality for Canadian citizens.”

“The IJC has in the past studied nuclear energy and waste issues in the Great Lakes basin and has made recommendations to governments. The Commission reviewed nuclear issues in the Great Lakes in the context of its biennial reports.  In the 1997 publication The IJC in the 21^st  Century, the Commission identified a number of nuclear issues for which the Canadian and U.S. governments might consider issuing a reference to the Commission, under the Boundary Waters Treaty, “ said Lorraine Rekmans, Aboriginal Affairs Critic for the Green Party of Canada.

A reference requires the Commission to examine and report on questions and concerns shared by the governments or matters of difference arising between them. Governments have not issued such a reference to the Commission.

The IJC was briefed on April 24, 2012, by both the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on nuclear energy and waste issues in the Great Lakes region. In addition, they heard from a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

However, in the absence of a specific reference from governments, the Commission will not be taking action on the matter of nuclear facilities and nuclear waste storage in the Great Lakes Basin.

“We need informed oversight,” said Rekmans.  The IJC must create a new IJC Nuclear Task Force and report on nuclear issues impacting the Great Lakes.  This has to be addressed as part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and we need a new IJC Nuclear Task Force to produce such a report.”

The post Greens Urge Government to Re-instate IJC on Great Lakes Water Quality Nuclear Task Force appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Any short term energy benefits of nuclear power are far outweighed by the massive and perpetual risks of disaster,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The Fukushima disaster brought the problems of nuclear energy back into sharp focus last year, causing many countries to rethink their nuclear programs.  Unfortunately, Canada continues to push for more nuclear, and more profits for the uranium industry. 

“Canada should be following the lead of Switzerland and considering how we can phase out our nuclear energy stations. Instead, we are pushing nuclear in China and Korea so that we can export more uranium.  It is irresponsible,” said May.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Harper signed an agreement to increase uranium exports to China. 

 “Nuclear is not an economically sound power source. It is not a clean or green power source. Most importantly, it is not a safe power source,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party.

The Green Party is calling for a full scale and independent review of nuclear safety in Canada.

On April 26th, 1986, the worst nuclear power plant accident in history released a cloud of radioactive contamination, equivalent to 400 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, over large parts of Europe.  The fallout has been linked to at least 9,000 excess cancer deaths, according to the World Health Organization.  In the Ukraine, 2.3 million people are officially reported as “having suffered from the catastrophe.”

“We need to focus on developing renewable energies which really can be economical and safe,” said May.

The post Remembering Chernobyl appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[VNJ2mal7U4w]

As a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we are required to verifiably ensure that no Canadian uranium ends up in nuclear weapons.

My question is: How will we do this, what reporting requirements exist and what was relaxed?

Hon. John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that Canada strongly supports the international convention and all of our legal obligations on nuclear non-proliferation.

The agreement we have with China is consistent with all of those agreements and ensures that appropriate safeguards are in place. This agreement will also help create badly needed jobs in Canada, and just as importantly will help China generate non-emission electricity, which will lead to less pollution and better air quality for people in China. We are very proud to play a part in that.

The post Oral Questions – Foreign Affairs appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The federal government has been keeping the transport of this weapons-grade uranium secret, including the delivery route.  “Even if certain details need to be kept secret for security purposes, Canadians should still have the opportunity to have their questions answered and make their voices heard,” said May.

There was an outpouring of opposition to the Bruce Power plan to transport 16 decommissioned nuclear steam generators from south western Ontario to Sweden for recycling through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. This plan is still on hold.

“The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission continues to display a reckless attitude toward the risks of transporting radioactive materials through-Canadian communities and ecosystems. Municipalities and First Nations have already let it be known that they do not want to assume these risks.  At the very least, a full environmental assessment with corresponding public consultation should be automatic for shipments of radioactive material,” said May.

The post Canadians deserve a say on transport of radioactive materials appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mark Milke, A Nation of Serfs

The post 1.6 Removing corporate subsidies: Distorting the market appeared first on Elizabeth May.