Thursday was a typically long day in parliament on Zoom. My birthday treat was that Mike Morrice covered for me over lunchtime (BC time) so I could meet a group of women friends from our old Newcomers Club.

Since the beginning of May, these 17-hour days are the norm. Through the collaboration of NDP and Liberals, the rules changed to have the option of sitting until midnight. This week, I worked from SGI, benefiting from the virtual rules under the pandemic, to avoid the carbon of flying whenever I can.  Later today, I will be back on a plane, landing in Ottawa around 2 am and back to work a few hours later.

When doing Parliament from home, it is odd to be fully awake, make-up applied and dressed for parliament from my dining room table at 7 AM, as Parliament opens at 10 AM ET.  On Thursday, I was all set to present my petition, with over 5,000 signatures, to call for the ban on the export of thermal coal, but as is ever more common, the proceedings went sideways before they even started. The Liberals moved to shut down debate on Bill C5, a bill to remove some mandatory minimums, and then to avoid Conservative Party use of procedural delay tactics, the government moved that we skip everything under the rubric called “Routine Proceedings” and get to the business the government wanted that day. Presenting petitions being part of Routine Proceedings, no petitions on Thursday, but lots of debate. As my staff arrives in the constituency office around 9, I shift over there and then shift back as they leave at the end of the day and keep going on zoom parliament until 9 pm (midnight in Ottawa). And on Friday, I was again all set for the coal petition, but again cancelled – this time due to a Conservative procedural delay.

As I watch my colleagues, it is obvious that the long days are taking their toll. People who are usually articulate struggle for the right word. People who are usually sharp say things like, “I have forgotten what I already said and where I am now.”  I keep thinking of the title from that old movie about dance marathons, “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?”  I am so tired I can hardly think straight.

Parliament has this odd tradition of midnight sittings for the month of June. From when I was first elected, in 2011, we have had midnight sittings in June every year save one.  But this year, for the first time, we have had midnight sittings since the beginning of May.  It does not produce great results. Who could be surprised that taking a toxic partisan pressure cooker and adding exhaustion and crankiness does not make for productivity?

It also means that important exchanges, occurring near midnight do not get much notice. I included the link to my 7 minutes of questions to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon Joyce Murray, in last week’s missive.  I want to draw attention to one of our exchanges HERE. You’ll find it at 4:36 into the 7-minute clip. The setting is parliament, but we are not in a normal sitting. We are sitting as Committee of the Whole, and ministers come with a phalanx of departmental officials sitting at a table in front of the benches, with large briefing books piled in front of them. The senior civil servants pass notes to the minister as questions are asked – specific numbers for what has been spent – or ignored. My 7-minute opportunity was just before midnight.

As I mentioned in my opening, the work on the fisheries committee is really collaborative and non-partisan. I join the committee as often as I can and I have good luck, with MPs letting me have a bit of their time to question witnesses. Concern for the health of Pacific salmon is shared regardless of partisan stripe.

I was not surprised that Conservative MP Tracy Gray, Kelowna-Lake Country, asked good questions, including a topic I had intended to bring up – whether DFO was concerned about polystyrene in the oceans. The minister answered that DFO wanted to “get polystyrene out” of the marine environment. This set things up well for my question. I have been tracking the very weak regulations being developed by Environment Canada (ECCC) for months now. I have asked about the loopholes in the single-use plastic regulations in Question Period. They plan to allow some single-use items – like plastic forks – to be exempted if they are capable of being washed and reused. The regs will not cover water bottles. And even though polystyrene products, things designed for use in the marine environment like floats and life vests, are not single-use items, the little bubbles of polystyrene are a major contaminant on our shorelines and contaminate the oceans.  Polystyrene breaks down and the tiny pieces of plastic are a huge problem. Currently, the draft regulations do not touch polystyrene. We need to regulate to prevent polystyrene from being used in products designed for use on docks and vessels.

So my question to Minister Murray was pretty important and her answer was a stunner. As her earlier answer had been that DFO wanted to get polystyrene out of the oceans, I asked if she was working to get the new plastic regulations to keep it out of the ocean in the first place.  She replied that the plastic regulations were being developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and “not a partnership with DFO.”  I went back and listened several times to make sure I had not misheard.  Our regulations against single-use plastics are driven by the idea we are keeping plastics out of the ocean, yet DFO, the department with the greatest focus on the oceans, is not involved?  Clearly, I need help getting Joyce Murray’s answer shared and pressure brought on ECCC to make the draft regulations more effective.

Another debate just before midnight this week focused on my earlier question about the increased risk of nuclear proliferation due to so-called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs.

The parliamentary secretary’s reply was lamentable. There was more focus on SMRs last week. Key critics of the industry, Dr. Susan O’Donnell, former MPP Evelyn Gigantes and Dr. Gordon Edwards appeared before the Science Committee on Thursday night. I had no luck getting any donated minutes to ask questions. The MPs – Liberals, Conservatives and NDP alike – overwhelmingly asked softball questions of industry witnesses.  The stand-out exception was Bloc MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas.  He focused on getting more information about the risks of the SMRs, especially as they relate to the spread of nuclear weapons.  One witness who is getting lots of media is Chris Keefer, president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. He confirmed to the committee his organization has 44 members.  Total. All individuals. I have never seen any NGO with fewer than 50 members get so much attention.

Those opposing the waste of resources for something as dangerous as reprocessing plutonium need to make it clear that SMRs are not necessary to meet climate goals.  In fact, any new government investment in nuclear is an obstacle to climate action.  The opportunity costs alone bury the experiment.

This week also included World Oceans Day, for which I had a 60-second opportunity.

It is important to be in Ottawa this week. On Friday, C-226, my bill to create a programme on environmental justice, combatting environmental racism, comes up for its final hour of debate at second reading.  I will stay put in Ontario until I get through the whole rest of the torture known as “silly season” by all who live through June in Parliament.

Wish me luck. 

With love and thanks!

Elizabeth

P.S.

Friends in the Lyme Disease community, take note of this five-year report required by my bill, passed in 2014. I will include my critique of the report next week.

Check out this webinar from the Global Greens! Our hugely successful Global Greens webinars continue with the next in our Spotlight Series!

Join us on Tuesday, 14 June at 11 am UTC, (4 am PDT) for

‘Green International Action: Think Global, Act Local’

An hour webinar led by our network, focusing on bringing global perspectives and action into national and regional contexts.

An expert panel of speakers and activists will share their experiences of working in the international Greens movement. Helping give you the tools to bring global work into your country, and really make a difference to our cause.

Facilitator Vivienne Glance will be joined by:

Pegah Edalatian, International Coordinator for the German Greens

Melanie Chapman, Former International Secretary, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Snigdha Tiwari, Climate Working Group Co-Convenor

Lucy Kagendo, Climate Working Group Co-Convenor

Mohamed Awad, President of the Egyptian Green Party, COP27 host country

Please register and share with your networks. It’s our connection that makes us strong.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., and the Green Party of Canada Parliamentary Leader.

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

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

Time: 07/06/2022 23:31:50
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at Adjournment Proceedings. I have to say the hour is awfully appropriate. I am going to be following up on a question I asked in question period on May 2, related to what are called small modular reactors and their connection to nuclear proliferation, so it certainly is appropriate that the clock is approaching midnight. It reminds me very much that there is something called a doomsday clock that is kept up to date by the bulletin of atomic scientists. I just checked it and it shows we are 100 seconds to midnight.

The combined factors are increased threats of nuclear war brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as the significant risk to the whole planet brought on by the climate crisis. These issues are related, and I related them in my question in the House on May 2. The answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was not sufficient and that is why I have brought it forward this evening.

The so-called small modular reactors are not part of any solution to the climate crisis. Moreover, they are untested and essentially experimental. Last, I again draw the attention of this place to the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Just to walk through those three points, the Minister of Natural Resources has said frequently in this place that there is no pathway to climate solutions that does not include small modular reactors. That is simply not true. Reducing greenhouse gases involves phasing out fossil fuels, cancelling the TMX and not pursuing Bay du Nord. These are tangible things that have nothing to do with nuclear. Nuclear is actually in the way. It is highly expensive. Per tonne of carbon reduced, it is about the most expensive way we can go and it also has a long timeline before we see any results from a decision to go with nuclear.

The fact that these reactors are untested and essentially experimental has not had enough attention in this country. I turned to an expert in the area, Professor Allison M. Macfarlane, as a source. She is actually the former chairperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is currently at the University of British Columbia.

She told this to the CBC:

Nobody knows what the numbers are, and anybody who gives you numbers is selling you a bridge to nowhere because they don’t know…

Nobody has ever set up a molten salt reactor and used it to produce electricity.

A molten salt reactor is exactly what the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick are throwing tens of millions of dollars at, to a private-sector operator who proposes this and has been approved to go ahead and build it. It is being reviewed at this moment, but the money is flowing toward a molten salt reactor that will use plutonium from the spent fuel at Point Lepreau in order to create this unproven technology and allegedly to produce electricity.

It is all very much in question, except for one thing. There is a huge risk in taking plutonium from spent fuel. It is the kind of risk that existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties are very careful to prevent us from doing. If we are promoting a global plutonium economy, even a tiny, infinitesimal amount of plutonium in the hands of terrorists could create a dirty bomb. In the hands of other countries around the world, there is the very large risk that they will produce a nuclear weapon.

We had this experience in 1974 when Canada gave India one of our CANDU reactors. It turns out that these new SMRs, as reported in The Globe and Mail this week, produce far more nuclear waste than conventional reactors. They produce two times to 30 times more.

Therefore, I ask the government to think twice. This is a mistake. This is radioactive snake oil.

The post “Small Modular Reactors” are not part of a solution to the climate crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Honourable Seamus O’Regan
Minister of Natural Resources

The Honourable Navdeep Bains
Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry

November 2021

Re: Canada Invests $20 million in Nuclear Power Technology

Dear Ministers,

We are writing today regarding the recent federal investment of $20 million, which was granted to Terrestrial Energy, a private company in Ontario, to continue developing a molten salt reactor. Canada must respond rapidly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s call to action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By choosing to invest in non-commercialized, novel and unproven nuclear technology, the federal government is redirecting funds away from renewable energy alternatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions much more effectively. There is a significant opportunity cost in investments that do not move us down a path to sustainability, but rather take us down the wrong road. It has been the case for decades that the Government of Canada, particularly the Department of Natural Resources, starting when it was the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has had a significant embedded commitment to nuclear energy within the civil service. It is time for the department to redirect its internal culture towards technologies with a proven track record of success and break away from deep loyalties to a failed sector.

Small nuclear reactors (SMRs) have no place in any plan to mitigate climate change when cleaner and cheaper alternatives already exist. The federal government must stop funding the nuclear industry and instead redirect investments towards smarter solutions. Nuclear fails on many grounds, including on the economics. Nuclear technology is capital intensive. SMRs are more expensive than renewable energy. A Canadian study found that energy from small nuclear reactors would be up to ten times the cost of renewable energy. As Green MPs, we urge that all energy investments be measured on the same set of metrics. Every investment should be assessed asking three key questions: 1) for every dollar invested, how many tonnes of greenhouse gases are avoided, 2) for every dollar invested, how many jobs are created, and 3) what is the effective timeline from initial funding to achieving results? Using these metrics, nuclear will always finish at the bottom of any hierarchy of energy investments. The winners, every time, will be investments in retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency and investments in renewable energy. This was recently borne out by the study published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, with lead authors Sir Nicholas Stern and Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Please find this study here.

If the economic case against such investments is not enough to persuade you that investing in nuclear is merely to throw more good public funds after bad, there remains the issue of nuclear waste. The SMRs proposed to be built across Canada will produce radioactive waste. The federal government does not have an effective plan to deal with this waste.

The 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report states that the development of nuclear energy is too slow to address the climate crisis. Nuclear power creates fewer jobs than renewable energy, such as solar, wind, district energy, and geothermal. These energy alternatives are cheaper and more readily available and this is where Canada should be making investments.

In the words of critic Fred Knelman, nuclear was a “future technology whose time has passed.” We urge you to stop investing in an industry whose time has passed. There are better energy alternatives for Canada to tackle the climate emergency. The federal government must redirect funding away from nuclear technology and towards renewable energy for the sake of all Canadians, and for future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any questions or if you would like to discuss this matter in more detail.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich-Gulf Islands
Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Jenica Atwin
Member of Parliament
Fredericton

Paul Manly
Member of Parliament
Nanaimo-Ladysmith

CC Hon. Blaine Higgs, M.L.A., Premier of the Province of New Brunswick

The post Minister Letter: Canada Invests $20 million in Nuclear Power Technology appeared first on Elizabeth May.