But when those same attitudes and willful blindness form the basis of federal government policy as expressed by our federal Minister of Natural Resources, it is a sign of negligent disregard for the public interest. It is unacceptable.

This is what Oliver told the editorial board of La Presse: “I think that people aren’t as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees…Scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated.”

Thank goodness the editorial board at La Presse knows how to ask questions. They pressed him to name any scientist who thinks our fears are exaggerated. He couldn’t.

The extent to which the minister doesn’t know his brief was further exposed when the editorial board asked him about the International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook’s concern for limiting carbon. Oliver had actually quoted from the report to justify his claim that fossil fuel production must ramp up to meet demand. When asked if he had not seen that the same report had made it clear that avoiding a two degree global average temperature increase is essential, and that in order to do so, two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground and not be accessed before 2050, Oliver drew a blank.

“I have no idea, I didn’t read that conclusion,” said Oliver.

Well, that’s like saying, “I opened Moby Dick and I never saw that line ‘Call me Ishmael.'”

Mr. Oliver must simply never have read the report at all. He must have had the selected quotes from briefing notes because to open the report at all is to see an executive summary in which climate concerns are front and centre.

“Successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2°C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes,” said the report. “If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time. Rapid deployment of energy-efficient technologies … would postpone this complete lock-in to 2022, buying time to secure a much-needed global agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

I keep trying to determine if Stephen Harper has ever had a briefing on climate science. This revealing exchange with the editorial board of La Presse confirms that if Joe Oliver has ever had a science briefing, he wasn’t listening.

Originally in the Huffington Post.

The post What Does Joe Oliver Know About Science? Not Much appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On March 21^st, 2013, the committee heard testimony from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The first witness was David Burden Regional Director General of Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Mr. Burden provided evidence concerning the fishing industry in the Central and Arctic Region. The second witness was Renee Sauve, Director of Global Marine and Northern Affairs, International Affairs Directorate, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ms. Sauvé provided evidence about the future of commercial fishing in the Central Arctic. She also discussed the possible necessity of an international fisheries management organization to manage fishing in the Central Arctic. The second hour of the meeting was in camera. Among other things, it was agreed that, in relation to the study of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Canada’s Engagement in the Americas, the proposed budget in the amount of $50,804.10, for the committee’s travel to Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, in the spring 2013, be adopted.  The Minutes for this meeting can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Spin: Joe Oliver will step up inspections to ensure that no single-hulled tankers sneak into Canadian waters.

Reality: Only about 50 large single-hulled tankers still exist in the world, and are already banned in North American waters.  Despite a 1993 international agreement mandating that all new tankers be double-hulled, and the International Maritime Organization’s global ban on all single-hulled tankers taking effect in 2015, the Harper Conservatives laughably claim to be “leaders” with our domestic, single-hulled ban for 2014.  Not a moment too soon, Mr. Oliver.

Spin: The Exxon Valdez was single-hulled.  Subtext: double-hulled tankers are inherently safe.

Reality: There are MANY instances of oil being spilled from double-hulled tankers.  A few: May, 2010, the Bunga Kelana spilled 2.9 million litres in the waters off Singapore; January, 2009, the Eagle Otome spilled 1.7 million litres at Port Arthur, Texas; in December, 1992, the Aegean Sea spilled 76 million litres off Northern Spain.

Spin: “The government will conduct scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products, such as diluted bitumen, to enhance understanding of these substances and how they behave when spilled in the marine environment.”

Reality: One would hope that well before we actually begin sending bitumen offshore, we would have some idea of how to clean it up in the event of a spill.  Wrong.  Current plans are to begin loading and shipping bitumen on supertankers before ANY spill response technology or strategies exist.

Spin: What is the big deal adding a few more tanker trips each year when, according to the Current situation backgrounder issued with Mr. Oliver’s announcement, “In 2009-2010, there were about 1,500 tanker movements on the West Coast, among 475,000 vessel movements in the area.”

Reality: According to Transport Canada’s own website, a tanker is defined as any “cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk,” and there are NO supertankers currently plying the BC coast.  Further, the same site explains that, “’movements’ refer to every time a ship (or vessel) commences and ceases to be underway.”  Every single time a tanker, any tanker, stops or starts, a “movement” is logged.  Of the 1,500 “tanker movements”, how many were empty? Probably half?  According to Budget 2012, only 82 oil tankers actually arrived in Port Metro Vancouver in 2011.

Spin: Yesterday, Ministers Oliver and Lebel tabled Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, touting it as yet another indication of the Harper Conservatives’ supposed commitment to all things environmental.

Reality: 100% of the Bill’s title is spin, and 99% of its content is simply departmental housekeeping, with little-to-no genuine impact on the safety of anything, never mind our seas and skies.

The post Oliver’s spin fails to cover a negligent record on tanker safety 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.

On 6 November, the committee heard testimony from the following witnesses: Nobina Robinson, Chief Executive Officer, and Ken Doyle, Director of Policy, from Polytechnics Canada;  Emechete Onuoha, Vice-President, Citizenship & Government Affairs, and Patricia Hawkins, Business Manager, Research Agreements & Innovation Services, from Xerox Canada;  Tom Brzustowski, retired Professor, Telfer School of Management, Ottawa University; and Robert J. Currie, Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law, Law & Technology Institute, Dalhousie University. Nobina Robinson voiced concern over the lack of a coherent, collaborative and responsive innovation within the market ecosystem. She argued that clear definition of the roles of universities and colleges is needed along with reallocation of funds by the government to industrial applied research to increase market competitiveness. To solve the imbalance between discovery research and commercialization support, Ken Doyle suggested investing in programs which solves industry identified problems (e.g the innovation program administered by NSERC) and introducing a national form of voucher program for late stage commercialization support. Mr Onuoha further commented on how strategic investment and applied research in commercialization are critical for the success of innovation. Information communication technology companies like Xerox drive nearly 35% of all private sectors research and development spending annually in Canada and thus can extend the impact of established value added R&D investment. Mr. Brzustowski emphasized the importance of having a strong first patent for market exclusivity; this is a useful protection tool especially where patent disputes and litigations are involved. Robert J. Currie elaborated on how the unofficial use of official marks have been used by public authorities for revenues at the expanse of tax payers; he suggested reforming the trademark act (section 9, subsection 1, paragraph N, subparagraph 3) to limit the authority scope of official marks.

The meeting this week was short as one of the committee members, Mme LeBlanc, moved that a study of the criteria, including national security, defining the “net benefit to Canada” that apply to the review of foreign acquisitions of natural resources by foreign state-owned enterprises be undertaken by the committee. The committee then proceeded to sit in-camera to deal with the motion. To see if the motion passed, see the Minutes.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The meeting on 30 October, 2012 involved the following witnesses: Wayne J. Edwards, Chair and Vice-President (Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network); Vladimir Gagachev, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Electrical Sector (Eaton Yale Company); Terry Hunter, Manager, Anti-Counterfeiting and Intellectual Property Enforcement (Canadian Standards Association); and John McDougall, President (National Research Council Canada). Mr. Edwards, Mr. Gagachev and Mr. Hunter emphasized the urgent need to fight the rising counterfeiting crimes in Canada. Among the major recommendations they mentioned included adopting a system where IP rights holders may record their rights with the Canadian Border Services (CBS) so that counterfeited products may be identified, empowering the CBS with an authority which enable them to target, detain, seize and destroy counterfeit goods and educating the young. Mr. McDougall reiterated on the role of the NRC, which has become less scientist-driven with more industrial financial involvement. As such, the NRC foresees more industrial type publication in the future. Mr. McDougall was also requested to provide some form of document which further elaborates the new direction for the NRC.

On November 1^st, the committee heard testimony from the following witnesses: Rami Abielmona, Vice-President, Research and Engineering, Larus Technologies Corporation; Gordon A. Davies, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Open Text Corporation; Karna Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Information Technology Association of Canada; and Martin Lavoie, Director of Policy, Manufacturing Competitiveness and Innovation, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. The Minutes can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On 25 October, the witnesses included representatives from two organizations and two individuals:  Victoria Lennox, Chief Executive Officer, and Dave Waters, Advisor, both for Startup Canada; Kevin Spreekmeester (KS), Vice-President Global Marketing for Canada Goose Inc ; Douglas Barber, Distinguished Professor-in-Residence, McMaster University; and Daniel S.Drapeau, Litigor, Advisor & Trade-Mark Agent, DrapeauLex Inc. As the meeting was delayed by forty five minutes, the witnesses rushed through their presentations while highlighting issues regarding counterfeit products and the weak performance of Canadian businesses in commercializing value-added products. Lennox, Waters and Barber agreed that this is largely due to poor communication contacts between entrepreneurs and the authorities involved such as the government and universities. Mr. Barber commented on how the “cultural commercialization” of Canadians is much more conservative compared to the American markets where there exists a “synergy” of communications between the entrepreneurs, students, government and universities thereby enabling strong support within the intellectual property regime of the U.S.A. Daniel Drapeau emphasized the need to improve the current trademark regulations in Canada to combat counterfeiting. These include the addition of criminal disposition, trademark registrations and statutory damages. Questions and answers between the witnesses and the committee members were short. At 11.45am, the committee voted to quickly end the meeting for the public.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On 18 October, the committee resumed its study on the Intellectual Property Regime in Canada.  Two witnesses were present: Diane Lank, General Counsel, Desire, Learn Incorporated, and Jason Kee, Director, Entertainment Software Association of Canada. The major issues discussed were the costs of filing patents in Canada and the piracy of electronic games. Diane Lank recounted the lawsuit which affected her organization in 2006 and subsequently reduced the annual growth for her organization. She also discussed how much more expensive filing patents in Canada is compared to the U.S. She emphasized the urgent need to have efficient communications (e.g via education) with trading partners such as the U.S and Europe so that the Canadian e-learning markets can be as competitive and better equip to penetrate into emerging remote markets such as Brazil, China and Colombia. Jason Kee stressed the importance of having a more formal law enforcement system within the Canadian market to combat the rising threats from piracy & counterfeiting within the electronic games industry. He mentioned a form of IP coordinator (as in the U.S) who would assist in prioritizing problems such as piracy. Among other issues discussed between the committee members and witnesses included lawsuit fees, improving innovation in the industry, government incentives (e.g grants & tax credits), piracy & trademarks challenges, systems of patent processing and patent filing disclosure.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Former U.S. President G. W. Bush was caught on camera once referring to the “vision thing.” Some commentators have suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not enunciated a clear vision. If Canadians wonder what Harper’s vision might be, look to the mania for slashing laws that might regulate the pace of fossil fuel development, to gagging and terminating scientific research that might call into question the impacts of said development, and the new obsession with attracting Chinese investment to ensure galloping growth in the oil sands. Harper has said that his goal is six million barrels of oil a day from the oil sands. This would amount to more than tripling the current levels of production. It is an odd goal for a government. It appears to me that all policy areas are subsumed to this one objective.

It did not come as a surprise that access to information requests from Postmedia’s Mike De Souza showed that, within the bureaucracy, the Enbridge Northern Gateway project was “top of mind” when drafting the 2012 budget. No wonder the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and its anaemic replacement within the omnibus budget bill; no wonder the gutting of the Fisheries Act, the re-working of the Navigable Water Protection Act to exclude pipelines as barriers to navigation, and the radical change of the National Energy Board Act to allow Cabinet to overturn a National Energy Board (NEB) decision. Now we hear the Species at Risk Act will be subjected to similar “streamlining.”

At the same time, there has been an unprecedented slashing of scientific capacity. Since spring 2012, allegedly due to internal decisions of the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, pink slips have been issued to more than 70 scientists across Canada in the marine contaminants program, the government has announced it will no longer support the world-class Experimental Lakes Area (58 lakes in western Ontario, the only place on the planet allowing whole lake experiments in fresh water science), the closing of the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory (the closest research station to the North Pole on the planet, tracking key developments on climate and ozone depletion), as well as a raft of other closuressmokestack monitoring, climate adaptation research and all the work of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. The government’s only advisory body on sustainable development, the National Round Table on Environment and Economy, has also been killed.

The argument that these cuts are necessary as a matter of fiscal austerity would be more plausible if not for the reality that these cuts, cumulatively, come to less than the Harper Conservatives continue to spend on ads touting their wonderful record. Throw in the $28-million spent this year on celebrations of the bicentenary of the War of 1812, the $5-million for the 100th year of the Calgary Stampede, and another $5-million for the 100th year of the Grey Cup, and it is hard to see the elimination of scientific capacity as anything other than a pre-emptive strike against evidence.

The most dramatic proof that the only driving force of Harper’s policy is oil sands growth comes from his 180-turn on foreign policy in relation to China. When he first became Prime Minister, he was overtly frosty towards the Peoples’ Republic of China. Although I applauded his focus on pressing China on human rights, the snubbing of China was too extreme and undermined our diplomacy. Now, Stephen Harper visits China regularly, and craves the audience and photo ops with leaders he once avoided, like the now disgraced Bo Xilai. In fact, the last picture of Bo Xilai taken before his criminal charges was with Harper.

What could explain this about-face? It is the realization that there is simply not enough free market capital flowing into the oil sands. To meet the ambitious growth target (not of the industry, but of the Prime Minister), investment from China is needed. To secure that investment, concerns about human rights in China, indeed for Canadian sovereignty and national security are getting short shrift.

Tabled in the House on Sept. 26, with no debate planned, no committee review and no vote, is the Canada-China Investment Treaty. Under Foreign Affairs rules of procedure, the treaty could be ratified by order in council as soon as Nov. 2. It will bind Canada for a minimum of 15 years. If a future government wished to withdraw, a one year’s written notice is required, but any Chinese state-owned enterprises already invested in Canada receive a further 15 years benefits. What are the benefits?

Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) will be able to launch claims for compensation if actions at the municipal, provincial or federal levels reduce their expectation of profits. These claims will first go to six-month secret diplomatic negotiations between China and Canada. If this fails, there will be a secret arbitration with three arbitrators in a hotel room somewhere deciding whether Canada’s laws or regulations have been “arbitrary.” From these rulings, there will be no appeal. Moreover, if Canada (or any level of government) wants to conserve resources, we can only do so to the extent we limit our own use of natural resources.

In short, the Prime Minister’s goal of six million barrels of oil a day from the oil sands is driving our foreign policy, our trade policy, has undermined our global climate commitments, is eviscerating our scientific capacity and is skewing our economy to one product at the expense of others. What no one seems to know is why our Prime Minister has more ambitious growth targets for the oil sands than those in the oil patch and why he has set a pace that no one can explain or defend.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Party.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post Why does Harper have more ambitious growth targets for the oil sands than those in the oil patch? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[u54MKmaws30]

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, spoke to media today about their 155th issue, “in Defence of Science.”

The post Press Conference on 155th Issue of Alternatives Journal: “In Defence of Science” appeared first on Elizabeth May.