March 14, 2018

Dear Ms. McCrimmon,

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on various transport-related issues. As the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, and the Leader of the Green Party of Canada, I have engaged on many transport-related issues, be it in the House of Commons or in my riding. I have briefly summarized my thoughts on some of these issues below.

I was glad to hear the federal government confirm it will be contributing to financing the proposed Lac-Mégantic rail bypass, the construction of which I have long supported. Residents of Lac-Mégantic, many of whom are still affected by post-traumatic stress from the derailment, deserve to live in peace and security. Hazardous trains should not travel through downtown Lac-Mégantic, and I hope the government will act quickly in building this rail bypass.

It appears that Transport Canada has no intention to put in place proper regulation and setbacks for liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers and proposed transit routes. The LNG project in Squamish, B.C., should never have been approved without a clear regulatory framework for setback zones for LNG tankers. Approving LNG projects that drive up Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions hinders the efforts to meet our targets under the Paris agreement.

The expansion of the Ridley Terminals Inc. will further hinder any action in the face of the climate crisis. Like the now-shuttered asbestos industry, it is wrong for Canada to profit from the export of coal destined to be burned in foreign power plants to create pollution and dirty energy abroad, while at the same time we work to eliminate its use within Canada. We must do our part by curtailing the export of thermal coal from Canadian ports.

Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, should never have been presented as part of an omnibus bill. However, the navigable waters section of the bill holds out hope that protections will be restored for some of the waterways that were left vulnerable under Harper. But it provides for a strange and convoluted process whereby it must be proved that a waterway is used by humans for navigation before it can be added to the protected list. The Navigation Protection Act does not go far enough to restore protections for Canada’s waterways. I look forward to the bill being studied at committee, and hope that it may be improved with amendments.

As you know, I presented amendments to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on Bill C-64, the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I am pleased with the progress this government has made on the issue of derelict vessels, which is such a pressing issue in our coastal communities. I hope that Transport Canada will be given adequate resources to aid communities with the management and disposal of derelict vessels.

I also introduced a Private Member’s Bill in December 2017: Bill C-387, An Act to continue VIA Rail Canada Inc. under the name VIA Rail Canada and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I hope the government will support this effort to ensure VIA Rail, as a crown corporation, is governed by the laws of Canada, with a mandate to expand passenger rail service, to modernize passenger rail service, and to ensure that our key routes as they now exist are protected. It is similar to Bill C-370, presented by the honourable member for London-Fanshawe. Ideally, these two bills would be brought together as one and brought forward by the Honourable Minister of Transport to increase its chances of passage in the House of Commons.

While there are many other relevant issues that may fall under your mandate as parliamentary secretary, those mentioned above are some of the most pressing in my mind. I would be happy to meet with you and your staff to discuss these and other issues further.

Sincerely,

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

A PDF copy of the original submission is available here.

The post Transport Canada Parliamentary 2018 Consultation 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.

Since 2006, Transport Canada has provided funding under the Airport Policing Contribution Program to the Victoria, Kelowna, Hamilton, and London airports. The Program was established four years earlier under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), but transferred to Transport Canada in 2007. It was designed to assist certain airports in financing the rising cost of policing in order to increase public confidence in the aviation system and provide a “consistent police response.”

This valuable federal contribution to the safety and security of Canadian workers and travellers will end on March 31.

“When I was travelling through Kelowna recently, staff at the airport were concerned about the imminent removal of RCMP officers assigned to the airport,” Ms. May stated. “Despite the fact the airport is relatively small, there are concerns that it serves as a conduit for drugs headed into northern Alberta.

Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC) replied to Ms. May’s question.

“I am concerned that the decision to remove the RCMP and other police presence at the airports, including the Victoria airport in my own riding, was taken without full consultation with local officials and local communities,” Ms. May said. “I am afraid Ms. Bergen’s response does nothing to alleviate my concerns.”

The post May Asks Prime Minister Why Airport Security Being Abandoned appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The basics go back to the line between what is political (elected people) and what is non-partisan (the civil service.) I could go back to discussions of the role of the Prime Minister, who in the early days was a Cabinet member with a portfolio like everyone else (usually Justice Minister and doubling as Prime Minister). The Prime Minister is, in theory, “first among equals.”

There wasn’t such a thing as a powerful Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) until Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister, but since 1940 there has been an office to coordinate the civil service, the Privy Council Office (PCO).

The role of the Privy Council Office is to provide non-partisan advice, over-see the civil service and provide a sound basis for public policy. It must maintain a complete distance from partisan control. I recall Alex Himelfarb, when he was Clerk of Privy Council (the title for the head of the civil service, essentially Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office) referring to the critical division between the PMO and PCO as a “Chinese firewall.” Messages could pass in between PMO and PCO, but the Privy Council Office could never be allowed to become a tool of the political arm (PMO).

It is a tricky relationship. Obviously, civil servants must take instructions and implement policy under different political masters. So when a civil service is under Progressive Conservative instructions from Brian Mulroney, for example, (or more accurately, Kim Campbell) one day and then under Liberal Jean Chretien the next, the civil service must pull together the appropriate advice and fulfill the direction based on instructions from the political masters.

What is not acceptable is for the PCO to “cook the books” to help buttress a political argument. The PCO has to stick to the facts, not invent them for the government in power. Which is exactly what I think is now happening.

The firewall between PMO and PCO is down.

Public policy making is now only a shadow of good government. The outward appearance of a functional Cabinet government supported by a non-partisan civil service is being maintained, but the reality is that nothing is normal.

What makes me think this? Some examples come to mind.

• The Environment Canada report on Greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that we are half-way to our target, is essentially an exercise in public relations. It is out of whack with what the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development calculated, as well as contradicting the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (which has been terminated). It says things like by 2020 our emissions will have declined to 720 MT a year, when 720 MT is higher than levels in 2010.
• The report from Transport Canada to the Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Project was proclaimed in a Transport Canada press release as saying that super tankers can safely carry bitumen crude from Kitimat BC to Asia. But the report never mentions any of the navigational risks, or includes the amount of time and distance it takes for a tanker to stop, or comments on any one of a few dozen key considerations. In fact, the report does not say oil can be safely transported. It merely says there are no “regulatory difficulties.” It reads like a report from people told what they must report, not a department that actually did a good faith review.
• The claim that no one in Statistics Canada objected to elimination of the Long-form Census even when it was very clear the department had pushed back.
• Recently, a colleague mentioned a friend at Justice Canada who nearly quit. The lawyer was asked for a legal opinion, but was told in advance what the opinion should say.

Other things that make me think the government is not functioning as it should come from many conversations I have had with Ministers in Cabinet. Without betraying personal conversations, it has been clear to me over and over again, that they do not know what is going on in their departments. When I worked for Tom McMillan, Minister of Environment in Mulroney’s government, no branch would have been laid off or key roles re-assigned, that the Minister had not weighed all the options and made a decision after long discussion with his senior civil servants. He would have known what was going on. The current role of Ministers appears to have been reduced to the role of “chief spokesperson” for their portfolio. Hand them the cue cards to deliver the approved message and off they go. But I do not think most Ministers in Mr. Harper’s Cabinet are actually involved in the decision-making. I think the exceptions to the rule make a short list — Rona Ambrose (who is doing a very credible job cleaning up various messes), Jason Kenney, James Moore, and Jim Flaherty, but even they can be over-ruled by the PM. True Cabinet decision-making appears to be a thing of the past.

My sense is that decisions are made by Stephen Harper alone. He dispatches orders directly to the Clerk of Privy Council, who sends instructions to the Deputy Ministers. The Ministers are handed the talking points to explain decisions they didn’t make.

What this means is that the civil service is completely corrupted by political pressure. The first phase of this process was the muzzling of scientists, then the massive lay-offs, ensuring that morale is at an all time low. The next step was to ask for reports that make a certain point, instead of asking for an objective assessment of the evidence. Government reports are no longer non-partisan. If I am right, the situation is very dangerous. And it is even more dangerous because it is invisible – in plain sight.

The post The most damaging things happening to Canada are the things you cannot see appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We are not going to have that opportunity.  With the 2012 budget, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have made it clear (as if it were not abundantly clear already) that discussion about Canada’s energy policy will be viewed by them as tantamount to a direct attack on the national interest.  To point out that ignoring the climate crisis actually hurts our economy with costs by 2020 of over $5 billion/year (conservatively), as the National Round Table on Environment and Economy (NRTEE) did, is sufficient cause for execution.  Given the small cost of the NRTEE, its origins in the Mulroney era, and its mandate to bring industry leaders together with labour, environmental groups and others to find multi-stakeholder consensus, the decision to kill it was a shock.  Environment Minister Peter Kent’s defence of the decision (obviously not his decision) that we no longer need such an advisory body because we have the internet is a joke.

For an environmental group to organize to protect the environment of British Columbia is to become targeted for “sanctions” under the Canada Revenue Agency, with $8 million set aside for going after environmental groups.  As the Globe and Mail pointed out “witch hunts do not come cheap.” The CRA has been conducting a steady campaign of harassment against environmental charities for years.  Audits have been frequent for years, with the desired chilling effect on public criticisms of government policy. Does Mr. Harper really need to direct $8 million more to equip CRA for even greater levels of harassment?

The decisions have all been made.  The problem is that in asserting that oil supertankers can safely traverse British Columbia’s northern coastal waters, the Prime Minister is ignoring quite substantial evidence.

Transport Canada shocked experts through a facile conclusion delivered to the Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge supertanker scheme.  No doubt at the direction of their political masters, Transport Canada told the panel it saw no “regulatory difficulties” with the proposal.  The document tabled to the review process in defence of this pre-ordained conclusion is a shoddy piece of work.  There is no reference to the 1972 moratorium on oil tankers, respected by every federal and BC government since then.    The conclusion the route is safe is based on the width and depth of channels and whether supertankers can actually fit through them.  The only discussion of weather and wave and storms is to suggest that (over time) a system of weather warnings will be set up to warn tankers to stay in port if it’s stormy.  How the tankers are to handle the extreme conditions known to come out of nowhere in the area is simply not discussed.

In that it has ignored Environment Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual which states that the Hecate Strait (through which the supertankers must pass) is “the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world.”

Author John Vaillant in his classic The Golden Spruce described the Hecate Strait as “a malevolent weather factory: on a regular basis its unique combination of wind, tide, shoals, and shallows produces a kind of destructive synergy that has few parallels elsewhere in nature.”  He goes on to describe how “blind rollers” – enormous waves that come out of nowhere — can expose the sea floor of Hecate Strait.  The submission to the review process never even mentions the Hecate Strait.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans review of the threat to humpback whales in 2005 named the proposed tanker traffic to Kitimat as a threat to whale recovery.  Humpback whales are listed as a species at risk in the threatened category.  Scientists actually think the fin whales may be even more at risk of tanker collisions. The Transport Canada document suggests they will have whale spotters to warn a captain to avoid a whale.  Really? Whale spotters can see whales in fog? At night? In a gale?  No wonder that even in the report to the review panel contains concerns from DFO and recommends that Enbridge continue to work on this problem.

Lastly, Transport Canada’s conclusions are based on a long list of safety features, including using two tug boats to assist in supertanker navigation, which are voluntary.  Enbridge will not own or control the tankers, but asserts its approach to tanker approval will ensure safety of the tankers it does not control.

Some people may buy this bland reassurance.  It is a lot easier if you only care about selling bitumen crude to China, and a lot harder if you care about the existing tens of thousands of BC jobs dependent on a healthy coastal ecosystem.   In fact, if you care about keeping BC’s coast oil-free, it is impossible.

The post Why oil supertankers have no place on the British Columbia coastline appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Since 1972, the coastal waters of British Columbia have been officially protected from oil tanker traffic through a moratorium established through a provincial-federal agreement, something the Green Party has been calling for to be enshrined in legislation.

May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, has tabled petitions in the House of Commons to stop the Northern Gateway Pipeline.  “Over and over from constituents and citizens, I hear that this pipeline is not wanted.  It will not benefit BC and it is not worth the risk,” said May.

The post Transport Canada Fails to Note Real Obstructions to Northern Gateway appeared first on Elizabeth May.