My question is for the Prime Minister this. Was the $26 million well spent? If so, will he implement the recommendations? If not, why not? Was it only short-term public relations in announcing the commission, or are we serious about Fraser River sockeye salmon?

Gail Shea: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to long-term support of the salmon fishery in British Columbia, which is why we established the commission in the first place.

We have introduced several measures that are consistent with recommendations from the commission, which include the moratorium on aquaculture developed in the Discovery Islands.

We are investing $25 million in the recreational fisheries conservation partnership fund. All of the revenues from the salmon conservation stamp will now be provided directly to the Pacific Salmon Foundation for use in its projects. We are providing $54 million to enhance the regulatory certainty for the aquaculture sector to provide greater support to science directed at aquaculture.

The post Oral Questions (Fisheries and Oceans) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Is this administration, under the Prime Minister, committed to the pledge he made in Copenhagen?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, our sector-by-sector regulatory approach is working. It is part of our government’s commitment to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

Thanks to our actions, carbon emissions will go down by close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. This is equivalent to shutting down 37 coal-fired electricity generation plants, and we are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP’s $20 billion job-killing carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am so gratified to have a follow-up question, because this repeated nonsense about bringing down emissions by 130 megatonnes over what they would have been in some imaginary universe is not helpful.

The Prime Minister’s pledge in Copenhagen was straightforward. It was 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Environment Canada’s data now says levels will be virtually unchanged from 2005 levels in 2020.

The question is simple. Does this administration have any intention of keeping its promise?

Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what our government’s action has accomplished. Since 2006, our government has invested significant funds in more efficient technologies, better infrastructure and adaptation, and clean energy. We have taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and electricity sectors. In fact, in the first 21 years of our coal regulations, we expect a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 2.6 million vehicles per year from the road.

We hope that the opposition gets on side with these.

The post Oral Questions (The Environment) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

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

I will quote my question to the Prime Minister:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The scandal is that the Prime Minister’s Office has allowed this kind of insular control freak operation to exert itself over all aspects of government policy. It has been incremental. I will accept that it is incremental, since the notion of such a thing as the PMO was first put on the agenda back in 1968, but the PMO is not in our Constitution. The PMO, unlike the Senate, would be easy to abolish. It is just a question of how much money the House, this Parliament in charge of the public purse, is prepared to allow an unaccountable partisan operation that bullies and oppresses people throughout the system to be allowed to continue to exist.

Earlier in this debate, my hon. friend from Thunder Bay—Superior North quoted a current Conservative, who describes it as “the Stepford wives” for the PMO throughout the system who no longer have the moral compass to say when something is wrong.

Will the Liberal Party assist us in dismantling PMO?

Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I remember reading The Stepford Wives. I think it was back in high school that we were required to read it, and I thought it was quite illuminating. It was an excellent book and it made one think about the condition of women in our society, but that is not what the member is talking about today. In particular, she is talking about the situation in the Prime Minister’s Office.

In relation to the question that this has become a very insular Prime Minister’s Office in which there is a determination to have absolute control, that is a reason to be concerned. Does her prescription for it solve the problem, or is it the right answer? I have seen a number of prime ministers’ offices over the years, and they have not all been like this one.

What the resources of the Prime Minister’s Office should be is certainly open to debate. I do not share the member’s view that it should be abolished, but what we need most of all is a Prime Minister who has the confidence in his team and in Canadians not to be a control freak.

The post Opposition Motion – Prime Minister’s Office appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would like to ask the member for his opinion, as a weather man, if it would not make a lot of sense when we have “mauzy” to allow bright sunlight to occur.

On this file, we need the sunlight of an inquiry to bring to light what we all want to know, which is what on earth was going on within the Prime Minister’s Office. What did the Prime Minister know? What does Mr. Duffy have in his particular skill set or other bits of knowledge that required the vast machinations of the PMO, working in concert with Conservative senators, to pull off a massive “deception”, in the words of the Prime Minister? The question that remains is this. Who was in knowledge of it and who orchestrated it?

Surely we need the sunlight of a full inquiry to get there. Why does the Prime Minister himself not demand this?

Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, sunlight is the best disinfectant out there. I credit the member for the things she did earlier, the same thing we did, on proactive disclosure and that sort of thing which is buried meteorologically.

Again, I am not a real meteorologist but I played one on television.

The mauzy conditions due to the weather of Newfoundland and Labrador always cleared up to be sunny due to one thing: the passage of time. With the passage of time, we, too, will get better answers, or at least we hope to, which is what this debate is all about.

The post Opposition Motion – Prime Minister’s Office appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We are now debating what is going on in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is in the Conservatives’ interest to say that the Senate is still the problem.

I want to ask my colleague if she agrees with me that questions remain with respect to the possible criminal involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification.

In fact, we are not just facing one problem here; we are facing two.

Basically, some senators made claims for inappropriate expenses, which is one of the issues before us. However, there is another issue that is related but not the same, and that issue is the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office in a Senate reimbursement and expenses scandal.

Therefore, this is not just a debate about senators who made claims for inappropriate expenses. It is also a debate about this Prime Minister’s involvement and his inability to provide transparent and coherent answers to questions about the situation.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to put this motion in context. This is about behaviour in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is not about the generalized problem of the Senate. I put this for my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary. In today’s Globe and Mail, one of his former colleagues, Inky Mark, describes the Prime Minister’s modus operandi. He said:

[The Prime Minister’s] biggest weakness is that he doesn’t listen to anyone. He thought he knew more than all of us put together. He didn’t trust anyone. He operated through his bullies.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary this. How do we jive the Prime Minister’s reputation for being in total control of all aspects of his operations at all times with what must have only been wilful blindness to what was going on all around him in the cover-up?

Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the Green Party member, but the Liberal leader supports Keystone when he is in front of oil people, but he does not necessarily support it when he is in B.C. or Ontario.

We have seen this with the Liberals before. We remember the former Liberal leader who supported the auto sector when he was in Oshawa, but when he was in British Columbia, he was not so supportive of the auto sector.

The Liberal leader supports the oil sands, but not taking it out of the ground. Anybody can support it, but if they do not support the pipelines that get it to market, what is the point to that? I am not sure the Liberal leader has figured out that the pipes we are talking about are not the ones used for smoking. They are the ones that actually deliver oil to the market.

With respect to the Prime Minister, he has been very clear. Had he known that this scheme was being hatched, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has accepted full and sole responsibility.

What we are asking for now is that the senators do the same. They are not, so there is a motion in front of the Senate which would give Canadians the accountability that they cannot extract from a ballot box when it comes to the senators.

We are learning now that the Liberals are going to sit on their hands and abstain from voting. When it comes to accountability, Canadians can always count on the Conservative Party to provide that accountability.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In an article I wrote in this week’s Georgia Straight, Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May caused an uproar in the comments section by saying she has seen no evidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a Christian.

“I know what a lot of people assert his religious beliefs to be,” she told me earlier this week. “I’ve seen no sign that he is actually a practising Christian.”

May’s comment came in response to my question whether or not Harper’s refusal to address climate change might be linked to his religious beliefs.

View the full original article >>

The post Elizabeth May sees no evidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a practising Christian appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There was no sense that we were building a strong relationship with that new government. I wonder if the member has a sense that we are building that now. Again, I apologize for bringing back what the Prime Minister’s comments were at the time. We certainly took a lead in Libya, but in Egypt we did not. I am wondering if the hon. member thinks that will affect our ability to influence the government to protect the lives of Coptic Christians.

Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a really good point. I had forgotten about that, but I do remember that comment by the Prime Minister back then that “you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”. It hardly seemed an enthusiastic endorsement of the Arab Spring in Egypt. I seem to remember our leader was a little more positive than that, but the Prime Minister is the one who really counts in foreign relations.

One cannot undo what happened in history, but clearly that comment and the lack of enthusiasm that he displayed would not be a positive in our ability to exert influence on Egypt. But we have to work with what we have and do our best even where we are.

The post Coptic Christians in Egypt (D) appeared first on Elizabeth May.