In this fight I developed a deep level of loathing for the two regulatory bodies – the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB).  Created by federal-provincial accords and legislation, these bodies have a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas. They also decide who gets the permits. But ever since Stephen Harper (C-38 in 2012), with mild tweaks, Catherine McKenna (C-69 in 2019), they also assess the environmental impacts of the projects they have a mandate to promote.  The empirical problem of conflict of interest aside, my loathing comes from dealing with the CNSOPB and finding them actually dishonest.

My daughter’s summer job in 2013 was as an intern with Sierra Club in Halifax.  She asked her god-father, Farley Mowat, to become a spokesperson for the effort to stop the drilling of a deep-water oil well in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (yup, as deep and for the same stuff as the BP Deep Water Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico). The site for the proposed drilling was dubbed “Old Harry.”

Farley told the media, “The oil companies mistakenly – and I think this is wickedly sardonic – have called it Old Harry because they liked the sound of Old Harry. It has such a familiar, pleasant, uncle-y name.” Farley knew the term was used by sailors as the devil himself. He said. “They don’t realize that, what they are doing, is they are calling their company after the devil’s own domain.”

The off-shore boards have approved seismic testing in the most sensitive time of whale migration.  Whenever a fossil fuel company wanted some accommodation, they obliged. This week a coalition of groups, including my old organization, won an unprecedented victory against the CNLOPB.  The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed that the CNLOPB did not have the right to extend the length of the permit for exploratory drilling for many years more at the request of the company.  The victory should also help similar efforts to extend license terms in the Arctic as well.  Score one for Farley – always on the side of the angels!

Sierra Club Article and Times-Colonist Article

As previewed in last week’s message, Bill Morneau provided his economic “snapshot” this week.  No surprises. Huge deficit. Huge debt.

So far, Greens are the only ones in Parliament suggesting really large scale changes so that we are not mired in debt forever.  As I call for us to really embrace Modern Monetary Theory, I have had a lot of questions about what that means.

What the proponents of Modern Monetary Theory argue is the same debate that has raged in Canada for years. That there is an alternative to borrowing from commercial banks and paying that billions in interest to banks. Many Canadians want to revisit the role of the Bank of Canada. Monetary policy could shift to reduce the high levels of interest-bearing debt. The counter- argument has always been that a country printing its own money is inflationary, and potentially dangerously so.  But in our current situation, we are at close to zero risk of inflation. We face a much larger risk of deflation.

The call for countries to be able to transfer assets within a domestic economy, much as a family can borrow and re-pay loans over time, is gathering strength.  The notion fits neatly among much of our ecological economics. For years we have talked about the “circular economy.” (As described here by the European Union)

We can also look to making human well-being and ecological sustainability the highest goals of a society – measuring genuine progress instead of GDP.  We can imagine an economy aiming for a steady-state condition of prosperity. We can look to the “doughnut economy” described by Kate Raworth.

The current leading voice for MMT is Professor Stephanie Kelton. She argues that as long as the practice does not become inflationary, a country can print more money.  What Morneau has been doing to create needed liquidity is borrowing to buy bonds.  Kelton would say, no need. Just print more money.

(Read more here)

It is certainly provocative, but is it wrong?  I cannot see how it is wrong as long as the central bank is carefully monitoring to ensure that if inflation becomes a risk, the brakes are applied. As I said this week in the House, humanity cannot re-write the genetic code of the COVID19 virus. Nor can we re-write the laws of physics and atmospheric chemistry that tell us we are perilously near the tipping point to unstoppable, self-accelerating global warming. We have to live within those laws.  But we can re-write the rules that govern the economy. Greens are calling for a new global evaluation along the lines of the post WWII Breton Woods Conference,

It’s about time.

Have a great Sunday wherever you are. Stay safe. Stay Well. Be kind.

Elizabeth

PS This week in the House, I had a lot of speaking time and held two press conferences.  Find them at these links.

This weekly newsletter is published by Elizabeth’s EDA in Saanich-Gulf Islands. You can sign up for it here.

• Elizabeth May: Full response to the federal Economic Snapshot 

• Elizabeth May: We need a federal inquiry into the “wellness checks” that are killing BIPOC Canadians
• Elizabeth May: Will the Prime Minister waive Cabinet privilege in the SNC Lavalin inquiry?
• Elizabeth May: When will the government allow electronic voting?
• Elizabeth May: Will CBSA prevent Americans from crossing the border for non-essential travel?

• Canadians need answers: Parliamentarians launch inquiry into Wellness Checks
• Greens demand a full inquiry into the RCMP

• Greens and Senator Kim Pate announce Senate inquiry into wellness checks
• Green Party reaction to federal economic snapshot

The post Good Sunday Morning – July 12 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change

House of Commons

K1A 0A4

April 30, 2020

RE: Consultation Submission on the Ministerial Regulatory Proposal to Designate Offshore Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador for Exclusion under the Impact Assessment Act

 Dear Minister Wilkinson,

I am writing today to provide feedback on the proposed regulation which would exclude offshore exploratory drilling east of Newfoundland and Labrador from assessments under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). I am very grateful for this consultation opportunity.

This consultation ignores the elephant in the room. Neither the Canada- Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board nor the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) should have any role in environmental assessments (EAs). Prior to 2012, they never did. The Harper administration’s CEAA 2012 put the National Energy Board, the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore boards in the position of running EAs. The Liberal 2015 platform pledged to repair environmental review. The EA expert panel convened by your predecessor, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, strongly recommended that these regulators have no role. Yet, C-69 continued to give these regulators roles as members of panels, and in the case of the offshore boards, through an amendment, are allowed to chair a panel.

This proposal, like the regional EA on which it is based, completely ignores this large and, in my view, insurmountable problem: The C-NLOPB has a conflict of interest because of its mission to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. Although the federal environmental assessment process is deeply flawed, excluding a federal assessment would further lessen transparency between the oil and gas industry and the Canadian public. Below, I explain my views in greater detail.

Exclusion of Climate Change Considerations in the Regional Assessment

I was pleased to review the regional assessment and see that it was very comprehensive. However, I am still firmly opposed to excluding offshore exploratory drilling east of Newfoundland and Labrador from assessments under the IAA, because the regional assessment ignored a key consideration: climate change

It is irresponsible to exclude the consideration of climate change when conducting an environmental assessment. Climate change is Canada’s single greatest threat, and without studying the impacts of offshore drilling on Canada’s carbon emissions, the regional assessment — comprehensive as it may be — is useless.

C-NLOPB’s Conflict of Interest

The Atlantic Accord, which outlines the C-NLOPB’s mandate, states that its primary purpose is: “a) to provide for the development of oil and gas resources offshore Newfoundland for the benefit of Canada as a whole and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular”.

Clearly, a regulatory board whose mandate is to provide for the development of oil and gas cannot at the same time be the board who reviews whether a project has met the environmental assessment requirements.

It is exactly this conflict of interest that led to the largest oil spill in Newfoundland’s history, which was deemed “impossible to clean up.” The Husky Energy spill was preventable, but the body that oversees regulations cannot be the same body that promotes project expansion.

Transparency to the Canadian Public

While I lament the federal environmental assessment process, I still think that in this context, two environmental assessments are better than one. Not only because the IAA may pick up on an issue that the regional assessment didn’t pick up on — such as climate change considerations — but also for the media and public attention a federal environmental assessment tends to garner. It is in the best interest of our democracy that the public is familiar with the undertakings of their government.

It would be cynical to suppose that the government wants to exclude offshore oil and gas projects from federal review because of this, therefore I will not suppose it. Instead, I hope that this is merely an oversight of the government, and that you will re-consider your proposed regulation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Member of Parliament

Saanich-Gulf Islands

Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Offshore drilling east of Newfoundland & Labrador appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Quite simply, this Bill will allow oil and gas exploration inside a National Park and drilling, including fracking, underneath Sable Island itself, said May. “I’m disappointed that this has already passed the Nova Scotia Legislature, but we will absolutely not support S-15 until these provisions are removed.”

Oversight for Sable Island is divided between Nova Scotia and Ottawa. Both levels of government have introduced identical legislation to create a national park on this wild, iconic island. Nova Scotia’s bill received Royal Assent in early May and the Harper Conservatives have introduced time allocation to make S-15 law before the summer recess.

After years of negotiation, ExxonMobil agreed to give up its decades-old rights to drill on the island, but it insisted on keeping its horizontal drilling rights to natural gas below the island one nautical-mile away and beyond. It would also retain the right to do seismic testing on the island.

Furthermore, Bill S-15 would give the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, whose mandate is to expand oil and gas production, unprecedented power to make regulations inside a National Park, setting a dangerous precedent and undermining the integrity of our entire national parks system.

“Local environmentalists and the general public are against oil and gas exploration and extraction on Sable Island, especially once it’s a National Park,” said May. “We all want to see Sable Island protected, but it is tortured logic to think that we would protect this rare and pristine area by allowing oil exploration. We must get this legislation right.”

There is pressure to establish a new identity for Sable lsland because the Canadian Coast Guard is withdrawing its services and there is no other government agency to replace it. As a national park, Sable Island would come under the jurisdiction and protection of Parks Canada which has been weakened by the Harper Conservatives.

The post Bill S-15 Would Allow Oil and Gas Activities inside Sable Island National Park Reserve appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I look at this in light of the independent study by the World Wildlife Fund that found that:

Mounting an effective response to a major oil spill in the Arctic is presently not possible due to enormous environmental challenges, a lack of capacity and the severe limitations of current response methods in ice-covered waters. 

The same report identified a so-called response gap whereby, due to the Arctic’s remoteness and extreme weather there is also a high percentage of time when no response, however ineffective, could even be attempted.

We need to have a precautionary approach. We need to develop a strategy for the prevention of oil spills. I assert again that Canada should use its leadership as chair of the Arctic Council to pursue a matter for an oil spill prevention strategy for the Arctic and not be complacent.

Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, our government fully recognizes the importance of economic growth and environmental protection. Canada has robust environmental legislation and standards, a tough safety regime and experienced independent regulators to oversee offshore activities.

The National Energy Board is a world-class regulatory body. Our government is convinced that the board has the appropriate tools to safely and effectively regulate any proposed oil and gas activity in Canada’s Arctic. Our government is determined to realize the energy potential of the North, for the benefit of all Canadians.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – The Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to pursue a question that was asked some time back, but it is still very relevant.

I asked this question in question period on May 17, and it related to a report that had just been released that the federal government was encouraging leases in the Beaufort Sea and other areas of our Arctic. At the same time, the National Energy Board had come up with a way to reduce what are fairly onerous requirements on oil companies that wished to drill in the Arctic. The National Energy Board had relaxed its requirements for proof of being able to drill a same-season relief well.

I think a lot of Canadians did not know what a relief well was until we watched the failure of one in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. We certainly saw there why there is a need for it. For example, if there is a blowout at depths in the ocean, a way to stop the blowout is needed, and a relief well is required.

In the case of the Arctic, with much more difficult climatic conditions, if a blowout occurred during winter months when there is ice cover and no daylight, the chances of being able to get in a same-season relief well are critical. The relief well would have to be put in before the winter conditions became an impossible obstacle, in order to stop a blowout.

On May 17, I raised this question: How would we eliminate the risks of blowouts during drilling exploration and development in our most fragile ecosystem in the Arctic?

Since I first raised the issue, the French multinational giant, Total S.A., aborted its efforts to pursue oil drilling in the Arctic in September. The CEO of Total, Christophe de Margerie, told the Financial Times that there was simply too large a risk. In fact, from his point of view, the financial risk to his company of attempting to drill in the Arctic would outweigh any benefit. As he put it: “Oil in Greenland would be a disaster…. A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company”.

We have a situation where at least one large oil company decided it is not worth the risk. However a second large oil company, Royal Dutch Shell, abandoned those attempts after repeated failures, also in September, after spending almost $5 billion in efforts to get at oil in offshore Alaska, in the Arctic.

Here we have a situation where Canada is about to take the chair of the Arctic Council, which is a huge opportunity for this nation. The Minister of Health, a member of the Inuit nation, will be chairing the Arctic Council table.

This is a time for Canada to show leadership and say we will not subsidize oil and gas, we will not promote oil and gas in the Arctic and we will insist on same-season relief wells. We will not allow relaxation of standards and we will adopt a precautionary principle in concert with the other circumpolar nations who sit at the Arctic Council table. It is critical that we protect our Arctic.

Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Our government is committed to ensuring that a strong and prosperous north helps shape the future of our nation. Without a doubt, the north continues to be a top priority of our government. We are carrying on with the delivery and improvement of key programs and initiatives under the northern strategy – programs and initiatives that benefit all Canadians.

The north is home to world-class resource potential, representing tremendous economic opportunity. Our government continues to encourage investment in northern communities while ensuring that investment is supported by a world-class safety and environmental protection regime in the north.

In anticipation and preparation for future investment in the north, the National Energy Board initiated a public review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. The final report of the public review released by the board on December 15, 2011, reconfirmed that Canada’s Arctic offshore regulatory regime is one of the safest and most stringent regimes in the world.

To emphasize this finding, the report included a series of new safety and environmental protection filing requirements for Arctic offshore drilling programs. These new requirements were developed based on input received during the public review. They will contribute to the already rigorous review process that the National Energy Board undertakes when considering whether to authorize oil and gas activities in the north.

The issuance of mineral rights on crown lands is important to encouraging investment in the north. Working with northern and aboriginal governments and people, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada issues rights to prospective resource developers. The rights issuance process in the north is open and transparent and, as in other jurisdictions in Canada, is market-based. An exploration licence issued by the department gives the developer an exclusive right to explore and to drill for oil and gas.

Currently, there is no drilling in the Arctic offshore. Any proposed activity associated with an exploration licence would require the authorization of the National Energy Board, and the review process would include public consultations. Also, before a drilling program would be authorized, the applicant would need to demonstrate that it meets the safety and environmental protection filing requirements for offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic.

Our government is committed to helping the north realize its true potential as an economically healthy, prosperous and secure region within a strong and sovereign Canada.

The post Adjournment Proceedings – The Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Wednesday, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB), an offshore-extraction regulatory agency, issued a “Call for Nomination” for Newfoundland ‘s section of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, giving oil companies until October 15 to express their interest in exploring and exploiting parcels of the Gulf.

Incredibly, this is being done before the C-NLOPB has conducted its promised Western Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to determine if it is appropriate to proceed with oil and gas development in Newfoundland ’s Gulf waters.

Meanwhile, today is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) deadline for arguments against the elimination of oil and gas exploration activities as “designated projects” prescribed by the CEAA’s Regulations Designating Physical Activities.

“As Harper promotes extraction industries across Canada ’s north, concerted efforts are being made to push the same thing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence while Canadians aren’t looking,” Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “At the same time, there’s today’s little-known deadline for saving assessments for destructive exploration processes.  From coast to coast to coast, this is a recipe for environmental disaster.”

The Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition has written to Max Ruelokke, Chairman of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, to express its shock and concern that the C-NLOPB would issue its Call for Nominations, especially before the Western Newfoundland SEA has even begun.

“The Board seems to be in complete denial regarding the damage seismic surveys, exploratory drilling, and offshore oil and gas development cause, especially to marine ecosystems,” said Mary Gorman, Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition.  “If the C-NLOPB isn’t prepared to assume a legitimate, precautionary and ecosystem approach as the alleged ‘regulator’ for safety and environment in our Gulf’s waters, then we should look into changing its mandate so that a genuine regulator can emerge.”

The International Ocean Noise Coalition (IONC) has written to John McCauley, Director, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, on behalf of more than 150 international non-governmental organizations concerned about the impacts of ocean-noise pollution (ONP) on marine ecosystems and their living resources.

“We urge you to include oil and gas exploration activities, including seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, as ‘designated projects’ prescribed by the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (CEAA 2012). To exclude these potentially damaging practices from environmental assessment would conflict with growing scientific evidence, as well as what is becoming standard practice by an increasing number of nations and inter-governmental organizations.

“Most scientists today recommend ecosystem-based management (EBM). The Canadian government has repeatedly expressed its support for an adoption of EBM, but it appears not to consider it when it comes to environmental assessments, particularly for seismic surveys.”

“Increasingly, with Canada’s offshore and other extraction processes, everything is open to development until citizens rise up to protect areas they hold dear,” concluded May.

The post Reckless Promotion of Maritime Offshore Drilling Opposed appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, Mary Gorman, Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition, Dr. Lindy Weilgart, Research Associate in Biology at Dalhousie University and an expert in seismic impacts on marine life, and Dr. Thomas Duck, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, also called on Canadians and regional provincial governments to join them in stopping the Harper Conservatives’ aggressive extraction agenda in the Gulf.

“We need as many concerned Canadians as possible and their provincial representatives to join us in our call for an exploration moratorium in the Gulf of St. Lawrence” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper has just spent the past few months pushing through his pro-oil budget and omnibus Bill C-38, and now he thinks nothing can stop him. We have to demonstrate that’s just not the case.”

The elimination of federal regulations for offshore development are likely to have dire consequences for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a highly sensitive ecosystem with over 2,000 marine species that spawn, nurse, and migrate year around, including lobster, herring, snow crab, mackerel, tuna, endangered blue and right whales, leatherback turtle, and harlequin ducks.

Environmental assessments for exploratory drilling, which can be as dangerous as production drilling, were eliminated in the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) introduced in Bill C-38. It should be recognized that the largest oil spill in American history, the BP Macondo Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, was an exploratory well.

Environmental assessments of seismic blasting were also eliminated. “Marine mammals and fish are highly impacted by seismic surveys. Whales can strand and die, often bleeding from their eyes; dolphins can go rigid, catatonic, and drown, and the hearing cells in fish can be ripped apart. To carry out this destruction in as productive and biologically rich an area as the Gulf is madness,” Dr. Lindy Weilgart warned.

The Harper Conservatives are eliminating environmental regulations and protections to fast-track offshore drilling in spite of the fact that the Gulf provides a renewable global and regional food source, generating a thriving fishery – including Mi’kmaq and Acadian fishers – which, together with the tourism industry, is worth one billion dollars and creates approximately 50,000 related jobs. At the same time, the Harper Conservatives have not amended the current industry liability limit which now stands at 40 million – nothing compared to the billions BP has spent in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf has unique characteristics making exploration and extraction particularly risky. It is a partially landlocked, inland sea with strong, counter-clockwise, tidal currents that only empty into the Atlantic once a year. There is no feasible way to clean up an oil spill because the Gulf is one of the windiest regions in North America. Due to the currents, one oil spill could damage five provincial coastlines (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Newfoundland).

“As coastal landowners, we feel betrayed and abandoned by our governments who are gambling recklessly with everything we have worked for our entire lives – our property values and net worth along with our Gulf’s pristine beauty, recreational pleasures and unique maritime culture,” stated Mary Gorman.

“I would like to formally welcome Prime Minister Harper to the 21st century and advise him that humans are not the only species on the planet. It is long past time to shuck off this anthropogenic attitude of superiority and mastery and learn a small lesson in humility. It is good for the soul. While the rest of the world is embracing change, our government is clinging to 20th century philosophies and business models. This may have been acceptable in the 1950s, but we have moved on. We urge the Canadian government to do the same,” said John Percy, Leader of the Nova Scotia Green Party.

This aggressive extraction agenda is taking place as the government’s ability to monitor negative impacts has been greatly weakened. Professor Thomas Duck highlighted the ongoing reduction of scientific capacity at Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

“Sound policy is informed by science, yet the Harper Conservatives have dismantled much of our capacity to monitor the impact of fossil fuel exploration and development. The elimination of scientific assessments and oversight — indeed, the whole of Harper’s war on evidence — puts the health and safety of Canadians and their environment at considerable risk.”

The post Greens, Coalition, and Scientists Demand Exploration Halt in Gulf appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The announcement that 905,000 hectares in our pristine Arctic waters are open for bidding comes as a shock – especially when Parliament is debating Bill C-38, which guts so much of our environmental protection,” said May.

The Green Party leader also pointed out that we do not know enough about the environmental implications of drilling in the Arctic.

The bidding announcement comes less than two years after such drilling plans were put on hold following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Ironically, after a subsequent Arctic-drilling safety review by the National Energy Board, looser rules were introduced.  These allow companies with equivalent measures in place to circumvent a requirement that they respond to a blowout by drilling a relief well before winter.  However, the alternative measures to deal with a blowout are not yet developed.

In the House Thursday, May addressed this issue:  “… My question is simple. How will the National Energy Board eliminate the risk of blowouts during drilling, exploration, and development in our most fragile ecosystem, the Arctic?”

As with most questions relating to environmental protection, John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, refused to address May’s concerns.

“Before we continue along yet another risky fossil-fuel road, the National Energy Board must clarify how it will eliminate or minimize the dangers of blowouts on the ocean floor,” said May.  “What equipment will they have aboard? What precautions will they take?  Right now we simply do not know. 

“Furthermore, the Arctic is a shared environment.  We need a circumpolar approach developed through the Arctic Council.”

Interestingly, the bidding announcement came just one week after Scott Vaughan, Canada’s Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainability, pointed out that the Conservatives are highly unlikely to meet their own greenhouse-gas reduction targets.

“As the rest of the world and many of its leaders pay heed to warnings about climate change, Mr. Harper is opening up as many areas to resource extraction as he possibly can,” said May.  “As the ice melts and the Northwest Passage opens up, he wants to speed up the warming while he destroys decades of environmental laws and ignores renewable-energy opportunities along with the jobs they will create.”

The post May Warns of Irreparable Environmental Damage in Our North: Oil and Gas Development Must Not Be Rushed appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I agree with her completely that spending $28 million on celebrating the War of 1812 is excessive at a time when we are supposed to be practising austerity. I would also say that spending over $1 billion on fossil fuel subsidies and a further $165 million in this budget for pipelines, tankers and offshore drilling is a threat. I want to ask her as a Quebec MP how she feels about the government’s new priority for drilling in the sensitive Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, this government has its priorities backwards. It should be investing in the green economy. It should be doing what other countries do and committing to and investing in this economy that could be profitable and create green jobs in Canada. But that is not what the government is doing.

I think that my colleague also understands that this government is not going in the right direction and that its priorities do not reflect those of Canadians.

The post The Budget appeared first on Elizabeth May.