I try to stay ahead of my homework, and, in fact, paid a lot of attention to that presser. If Joe had done his homework, he would have seen this detailed critique of that announcement. Read for yourself.  I note that the government says it will do research on how unconventional oil, “such as bitumen” behaves in a spill.  I said that’s a good idea.

But clearly, that press conference and announcement did not convey that this massive spending was attached to a wide range of activities all in aid of one specific project-  the Enbridge twinned pipeline and tanker scheme.   Have a look.  Check it out.  (something I wish media had done before assuming we missed some big announcement).

The announcement in March used some of the same words, but it sure did not convey what we learned through the leaked documents.

Reality check on Transport Canada’s claims for tanker safety

Harper’s public relations and spin team hit Vancouver in March claiming to have substantially revamped environmental protections for pipelines and tankers. Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Minister of Transport Denis Lebel described their new regime for oil spill safety against the backdrop of the Port of Vancouver. Minster Joe Oliver trotted out a line we are bound to hear more often, in the boiler plate of nonsense to which we seem to be inured, that the Exxon Valdez spill could never happen in Canada.

The really stunning aspect of the announcement was that the media largely fell for it – as though something serious was being announced. The event that went unreported at the time, that one of the emergency response vessels for tanker spills, scheduled to be part of the press conference backdrop, ran aground on its way. It is the perfect metaphor for a large non-event.

The March 2012 budget had actually included almost everything re-announced a year later in March 2013. It included pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations. Not only was the announcement duplicated in the 2012 budget the new measures were repeatedly cited as though they were part of the budget omnibus bill C-38. Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment… As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.”

None of this was in C-38. It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013. I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.

The only new aspect of the announcement was of an expert panel to review tanker safety and to study the specific risks of a spill involving bitumen and diluents. As the entire Enbridge Joint Review Panel hearing has been dealing with a product it does not plan to ship — crude oil – it is certainly worthwhile finding out how bitumen and diluents will behave.

At the Vancouver press conference, Oliver and Lebel trumpeted that they had tabled for First Reading the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I sought it out to read it. Its introduction for First Reading had been splashless. Once again, I was underwhelmed. The bill is merely a series of housekeeping measures. The “safeguarding skies” piece deals with aviation and aeronautics, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So, nothing about double-hulled tankers.

The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee, (“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that year. None were allowed in North American waters.

Do double hulls eliminate the risk of oil spills? Not actually. Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers. Their use has not ended the risk of accidents and oil spills. Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of millions of litres in ports around the world. Double hulls can be sliced open and oil spills out.

The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement, with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.

Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

• Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.
• In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast….
• A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or movement.

In fact, the 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along BC’s north coast. That was a federal-provincial moratorium. Most readers will not notice the subtlety of the website reference to the “federal moratorium.” Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or ceases to be underway. Underway is defined as a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.” And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers. In 2011, the total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82. None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.

In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.

Originally published in Hill Times in April 2013

The post Reality Check: Northern Gateway Project appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The numbers [p. 386] show VIA Rail’s budget going from $475,651,000 in 2012/2013 to a dismal $187,783,000 in 2013/2014. This would represent a 60% budget cut.

“At a time when forward-thinking governments around the world are making strong new investments in passenger rail as the backbone of a sustainable transportation system, these possible cuts to VIA Rail are particularly short-sighted and appalling,” said Chris Turner, Mass Transit and Transportation Critic for the Green Party.

“Passenger rail is a vital component of Canada’s transportation infrastructure and it has been neglected for far too long. Once again, Harper’s Conservatives have shown themselves willing to sell off Canada’s future for its own short-term political goals,” added Turner.

“The estimates are not the final word on VIA Rail’s budget next year, so I’ll continue pressing for an increase of VIA’s budget. I recently sent a letter to VIA Rail’s CEO regarding the recent cuts to service and changes to policy that appear designed to drive away their customer base. Crippling VIA Rail in order to better privatize it would be textbook Harper,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The post Greens Denounce Threat of Extreme Cuts to VIA Rail appeared first on Elizabeth May.

January 28, 2013

Dear M. Laliberté,

As leader of the Green Party, I have long been a strong advocate for passenger rail.  Prior to a life in politics, I was one of VIA’s best customers, frequently travelling the Ottawa to Halifax route, as well as several times a month the Ottawa-Toronto and Toronto to London routes.  Since 1993, I have managed to make at least one trip a year from Vancouver to Toronto.  As an MP, I continue to promote the train and travel by rail often.

My grandfather used to repeat the saying, “this is no way to run a railroad.”  I think he could have been speaking of current VIA Rail management.

I say this without intending any disrespect, but I will set out what I am seeing transpire and ask for your response.  I will publish both in an effort to increase public awareness of the challenges facing VIA Rail.

I am mindful of the huge level of challenges VIA Rail faces.  The structure of rail ownership, in which freight owns the tracks and VIA has to abide signals forcing passenger rail to the sidings to allow freight to pass by, the cost of diesel, the rising costs of pensions, the recession, the on-going problems with the Renaissance cars purchased from the UK, among other challenges, all make it difficult to run a profitable railroad.  The fact that, unlike Amtrak in the US, Canada has no legislative framework for running VIA is not helpful.

It needs to be argued that on-going investments in VIA are essential.  For example, we really need VIA investment in the E and N Railway on Vancouver Island.  I know a request for VIA support is outstanding. Many of VIA’s routes are not serviced by buses.  It is essential that any modern country have an efficient and well-run passenger rail option. The airports receive government support and to a much larger extent, so do our highways.  We desperately need a national transportation policy that addresses all transport components in some sensible public policy framework.  The fact that we have none of these things is not the fault of VIA Rail management.

So, permit me to focus on recent cuts to service and changes to policy that appear designed to drive away your customer base.

The cuts have received some media coverage.  We are now down to only two trips a week from Vancouver to Toronto in the off-season and only three a week for “The Ocean,” in the heavily travelled Halifax to Montreal route.  Cuts to service in the Windsor-Quebec Corridor have been especially severe in the London and Sarnia routes, but fewer stops between Ottawa and Toronto will also lose VIA business. These cuts, of course, fall after devastating reduction in services in the 1980s, when we lost many important rail links.

Moving from these huge cuts to matters of policy, I wish to itemize changes in policy I have observed over the last year.

1. In the past, when a train was full, new cars were added. Given these cuts, the least one would expect as policy would be that the drastically reduced number of trains should add cars to accommodate more passengers.  Yet, the policy appears to be that “Sold Out” notices are posted when in the past, more cars would have been added.  I recall being on the Halifax to Montreal route some years ago when there were 700 passengers.   Why cut service in half on popular routes and then further deny service by refusing to add more cars for the few trips that remain?
2. Another area of new policy that appears designed to drive away business is the refusal to wait for a connecting train to allow passengers to make the connection.  Airlines do this.  Why has VIA Rail now decided that an on-time start is more important than waiting for as little as 5 or 10 minutes to allow passengers to complete their journey?
3. Why is VIA trying to make it harder to buy tickets at the station and trying to drive passengers to purchase on-line, even offering discounts (and losing the company more money)?  It seems another way to shut down stations and service at stations, but a loss of service runs the risk of  losing more business.  VIA needs to increase its customer base.
4. Why has VIA decided to refuse to allow passengers to carry their bags on board trains where there is ample baggage space?  The new “carry-on” rules work toward undoing one of rail’s single largest advantages as compared to air travel – ease of boarding and no hassles.  Requiring bags to be weighed and then insisting on tagging bags over 50 lbs and taking them to the baggage car, requires passengers to come earlier.  I witnessed a man trying to board VIA 1 have his bag taken from him (he was all set to carry it on board himself) and then he was told his bag would arrive at his destination on a different train, hours later than his arrival. It is absolutely illogical.  No one is asked to pay more, so it is not a matter of the weight of the bag and the drain on fuel as it would be on an airline. There is ample baggage space in the VIA 1 cars.
5. Lastly, I am concerned for the impact these changes (and the lay-offs) are having on morale of VIA staff.  One member of staff dealing with baggage told me they are punished if they allow any passengers carrying their own bags to sneak through the weight line-up. There are people watching them all the time, he said.  The on-board train crew is fearful and demoralized.  Another clear competitive advantage at VIA has always been corporate loyalty and a high level of personal service.  Now what I hear from train personnel (across Canada, and in station and on board staff) is “I am just waiting to get my pension… I used to love working here, now I am just counting the days…”.

My criticisms are intended to be helpful. I am very fearful that the direction of investments in improved rail cars and investments in new stations on the Windsor Quebec corridor give rise to concerns that VIA may shed its Toronto to Vancouver and Montreal to Halifax routes altogether.  The loss of the Calgary to Vancouver route in the 1980s to the private sector for tourism is not something Canadians would ever want to see happen again.  We need a cross-country passenger rail service.  We need to keep it, invest in it and improve it.

Please consider me an ally in any efforts to improve rail service. I look forward to your response.

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

The post Letter to VIA Rail’s CEO regarding the recent cuts to service 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.

We no longer have people on board in the last car, the caboose, which used to be required under regulation, to monitor safety. I believe that the spill at Wabamun Lake, which the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona knows about very well, occurred largely due to the cutbacks of key safety positions of personnel on board freight.

It needs to be reliable and safe. We are having far too many derailments.

Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has made a series of recommendations, some of which are on staffing. Others are on the need for advanced technology to be installed in rail cars. For example, voice recording in the locomotive cab has not been done yet, even though the recommendation is eight years old.

There has been a recommendation for a positive train control system that would provide an automatic braking system. If the conductor happened to miss a light, a track or a red light stop sign, the train would stop automatically based on GPS technology. Unfortunately, that recommendation is again being ignored by the minister. The United States made it mandatory that all trains have automatic braking devices for safety, but we do not have such legislation in Canada.

Therefore, both staffing and technologies should be in place to keep train services safe.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to raise one issue with my colleague that has troubled me for a long time as an advocate for passenger rail. The member pointed out quite rightly that VIA Rail does not own its own tracks. It must get permission and lease them from freight. The increasing problem is that freight trains are getting increasingly longer, which means they can no longer use the sidings that are available. That means that passenger rail always has to go to a siding, because of shorter trains, and wait there while freight goes by. That is undermining the efficiency of passenger rail through freight.

I wonder if my colleague would have any comments.

Matthew Kellway: Mr. Speaker, the future of transit in this country should be focused on making passenger transit more efficient. The environmental impact of that would be tremendous for Canadians. I would note too that the emission intensity of passenger rail over the last 20 years or so has improved by about 26% and there is lots of room for greater improvement for passenger rail.

It would be wonderful if there were a way to give passenger rail greater priority on the tracks, to work out some system, so that freight travel could also continue in a competitive and efficient way as well.

The post Fair Rail Freight Service Act (Bill C-52) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“These cuts to our national infrastructure will come at an economic cost.  In tourism alone, Canada will lose.  With lack of service, ridership will continue to decline.  Some communities will be stranded and, in particular, seniors may suffer lack of mobility, as the highways and airlines become the only option.  This is not a forward thinking plan,” said May.

The cuts to VIA rail come at a time of increasing public service cuts, with 1000 jobs being lost in the latest round.

Canada is the only country in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with no national transportation strategy. While Europeans have highly efficient inter-modal connectivity, with high speed rail linking downtown cores to airports, with bicycle lanes allowing people to move around cities safely, efficiently and pollution-free, with streetcars in the downtowns and even rural areas serviced by bus and rail, Canadian communities are increasingly stranded.

In much of Canada, rail routes that once moved thousands of people are abandoned. Edmonton to Calgary, Saskatoon to Regina, Halifax to Sydney have all been axed, despite their profitability.

“Yes, our rail system needs an overhaul, but the focus should be on improving efficiency of the passenger and freight systems, increasing commuter trains and shifting cargo off highways and onto freight trains.  We appear to have gone off the rails.  Instead of improving things, we are slowly losing our rail infrastructure, to the detriment of Canada,” said May.

The post Should have More Trains, Not less, say Greens appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I make the point now only to say that I think the House is moving to a place where we may have wanted to be some time ago. Members are prepared to see the bill pass. I just wanted to add my words of support for the bill. I think the House is perhaps unanimous.

I turn to my friend in the Bloc and ask him if he has any additional points.

We do need to ensure that rail safety is a priority. This is a very important bill, even if it is a housekeeping bill. I hope that, once it is passed, we can move on to look at the other issues that have come up in debate about improving access to rail, passenger rail, improving the freight lines and potentially moving Canada into the 21st century of rail travel through high-speed rail. However those are all points that go beyond the legislation before us.

Jean-François Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very apt comment.

We have indeed reached a point where all parties in this House agree on passing this bill. I believe that it is important to improve safety, as my colleague mentioned. There is no doubt about it. Earlier, I alluded to apple pie. Who can be against apple pie?

We need to move on to the next step. The bill must be passed. But I wish to reiterate that it is important for the government to have a clear policy that will provide the railways, no matter where in Canada they might be located, with funds to maintain costly infrastructure, because the railways are invaluable from the environmental, sustainable development and transportation standpoints, whether we are talking about transporting goods or passengers. What is needed is a clear investment policy for the railway network across Canada.

The post Safer Railways Act (Bill S-4) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May is a lone voice in the wilderness and yet she has made her presence known in our riding far more than Gary Lunn who only appeared when there was a tree to be planted or a highway to open.

Elizabeth May cares and she is willing to stand up for what is right. The federal government under Harper is in a sad and sorry state when retirement for pensioners’ age is increased, the CBC is deprived and 20,000 people laid off so Harper can purchase fighter jets. For what purpose? Canada has come a long way from our peacekeeping roots.

It is a sad day for us all.

Lili Soleil-Garbutt
Sidney

View the full original article >>

The post May the ‘lone voice in the wilderness’ appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I was intrigued that the member from Davenport mentioned the fact that when one travels from Toronto to Ottawa the rail speed is never much more than if one was actually driving. Speed, though, can also be dangerous, and without adequate regulation and the automatic brake systems that we need, speed can cause derailment.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether in his view we need to substantially invest in the modernization of the railbeds so that we can bring in high-speed rail and actually live with the advantages of modern societies around the world that buy Canadian technology from Bombardier to have high-speed trains?

Andrew Cash: Mr. Speaker, members on the government side love to talk about how they are great fiscal managers and brilliant economic planners, but the fact of the matter is that if we look at emerging economies, they are investing in high-speed electric train technology right now.

We have the tracks laid. We need the major infrastructure investments to bring our rail transit up to speed for the 21st century.

The post Safer Railways Act (Bill S-4) appeared first on Elizabeth May.