“We understand the complexities involved in the deep integration of our two countries, their trade and economies,” said Interim Green Party Leader Jo-Ann Roberts. “However, given the escalating outbreaks of COVID-19 in the United States, particularly in states that share a border with Canada, such as New York and Washington, we urge the federal government to immediately restrict entry to Americans travelling to Canada solely for tourism. The Liberals’ assurances that U.S. tourists will be required to self-isolate is not a satisfactory guarantee in light of such a dangerous threat.”

“We have witnessed the extraordinary spread of COVID-19 in Europe, as well as the weak and delayed effort by the Trump administration to curb its spread throughout the U.S,” said Green Party parliamentary leader Elizabeth May (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands). “The situation in America is likely to be far worse than here, and the sooner we protect ourselves the better. We need to be able to focus on Canadians coming home and self isolating, not worrying about whether American tourists are doing so as well. British Columbia and Ontario have seen the most rapid spread of the virus to date in Canada, despite all the measures put in place. We must act now.”

Paul Manly (MP, Nanaimo-Ladysmith) pointed out that Canadian health officials and border service personnel are already under immense pressure to protect the safety of Canadians. “We all appreciate the tremendous work these officials are doing to protect us all,” said Mr. Manly. “Restricting American tourists from entering Canada at this time would bring some relief to their already burdened workload, and allow them to focus on returning Canadians. It just makes sense.”

The post Green Party says US citizens should be included in new border restrictions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It is not possible to write a cheery “Good Sunday Morning” after the multiple tragedies of this week. As a country, we are in mourning with deep pockets of grief in ever widening circles around each victim. We grieve with increasing intensity as we learn more of the individual lives cut short by the missile strike against a civilian airliner.

We know who was innocent. Every life lost on the ill-fated Ukrainian Airlines flight was innocent, from the Ukrainian flight attendants to the Canadian-Iranian newlyweds, to the brilliant graduate students heading back to Canada, to the babies.

It is harder to know who was individually guilty, but many decisions led to this tragedy.

The proximate causes start with President Trump’s reckless decision to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani. In our media, I have heard it compared with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that led to the First World War. That comparison struck me as false from the outset. This was no rogue element, no individual radical with a hand gun as the Bosnian separatist who killed Archduke Ferdinand in 1914. This was the President of the United States, a man with access to the most powerful and deadly of military arsenals, launching a drone to kill. Whether General Qassem Soleimani was a nice man or a deadly murderer himself is irrelevant in international law. When the West found it convenient to enlist his help in the fight against Daesh (ISIS), he was a U.S. ally. The question is not, as a disturbingly large number of Canadian commentators would have it (Conrad Black “the world is a better place without him” and John Robson “killing Soleimani was a no-brainer” among others) was he a terrible human being? The question is: did the US government have a legally defensible rationale for a deliberate murder? Was it legal under US law, a question with which the US Congress is now grappling? Was it legal under international law?

To be legal under the United Nations Charter, there would have had to be proof of an imminent threat, that the actions were necessary and proportionate. That test may still be met by evidence which – at this point – no one has seen. I am grateful, at least, that Canada has not taken an official view on the legality of the assassination.

The wide support for an extra-judicial targeted assassination of a foreign country’s official because he was “bad” is beyond dangerous. We can all think of brutal killers and dictators and dangerous people globally. Some of them lead countries with which the US is on cozy terms. But any international stability requires respect for international law.

The assassination of General Soleimani was at least reckless. What were Trump’s motivations? It is premature to insist the president did not have valid security intelligence to justify his actions. But it is also naïve to dismiss the domestic political scene – the pending impeachment and the fall election — as factors. In fact, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump was influenced to assassinate Soleimani to secure support from his Republican allies in the Senate. Senator Lindsay Graham appears to have been the only, or at least one of a handful, of people briefed in advance. (Link)

Iranian reaction to the assassination in the form of very targeted missile strikes on the US base in Iraq was deemed “proportionate” and careful by most commentators. And just as Trump was tweeting out “all is well” and that no American military had been killed in that missile strike, the Iranian ground to air missile was launched – by mistake – killing all on board Ukraine International Airlines flight 752.

The Iranian regime is also brutal and anti-democratic. Nevertheless, it had been honouring the agreement with the U.S. negotiated under former President Obama’s administration. That agreement was a significant step toward security in the region. In May 2018, Trump denounced the deal and launched new economic sanctions against Iran. Many other world leaders urged the US to re-engage. France’s Emmanuel Macron has been one of the strongest advocates globally to rescue the deal after Trump’s pull out. Just months ago, in September 2019, France went so far as to be brokering direct talks with Tehran offering a $15 billion bail-out package to compensate for economic losses due to US sanctions, so long as Iran honored the deal and its nuclear inspections. (Link)

The possibility that Iran could be induced to maintain the deal was crushed following Soleimani’s assassination. Within days, Tehran announced it would fully withdraw from compliance, over the pleas of Germany, the UK and France. (Link)

Clearly, actions by Trump have been destabilizing in the region. The assassination of General Soleimani worsened the situation. And the consequences are beyond tragic.

No question that the Iranian government has committed an outrageous act. It has acknowledged responsibility for the horrific crash that killed so many people. That accident would not have happened if Trump had not launched the drone to kill Soleimani. To call it “human error” seems an understatement.

Yet, it is human error. It is human error to build up vast killing machines and think that in times of heightened fear mistakes will not happen. The people who bear the blame for this disaster are many. And they are not all in one country.

For now, I want to share my gratitude to Justin Trudeau for representing who we are as a country, in this moment of grief. I appreciate that officials from Foreign Affairs and our department of defence have taken the time to brief me and other opposition party MPs. I appreciate a personal phone call from the prime minister with one focus. Now is the time to do all we can to support those who lost loved ones. Light a candle. Attend a vigil.

Let us each do whatever we can to extend our love to those whose friends and family members died so tragically in the grip of the reckless actions of powerful men.

Love and peace,

Elizabeth

This weekly blog is published by Elizabeth’s EDA in Saanich-Gulf Islands. You can sign up for it here.

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

The Chair: It’s my understanding that after round two there would be unanimous consent.

Would that be the case, Mme LeBlanc?

Hélène LeBlanc: We have many questions to ask.

The Chair: It has to be unanimous. No consent.

Dan Harris: Maybe ask again after the second round.

The Chair: Maybe we’ll ask again.

I’ll be glad to ask as many times as you allow me.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to members of the committee for allowing me a chance to ask questions.

Do I have five-minute time limit, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Five minutes, that’s correct, Ms. May.

Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Chair, can we make sure that the time allocated for the opposition is not used for this and that we would still have our time to ….

The Chair: That’s correct.

Hélène LeBlanc: Thank you very much.

The Chair: That said, that means I’ll have to stick very tight now to the five minutes. So for the questioners and the answerers I’m going to have to stick a lot tighter because we only have 27 minutes left.

Hon. Mike Lake: Just to clarify, where are we with questions?

The Chair: After Ms. May is done, then we’ll go to our third round. It will be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

Ms. May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll attempt to use my time efficiently. Thank you witnesses.

I want to go back to the competition policy review panel and their advice before the amendments were tabled in 2009. I’m really going to ask questions specifically around the fact that these amendments through Bill C-60are attempting as I see it to bring greater clarity around certain concepts and to extend timelines for national security reviews.

What I want to know is if whether within Industry Canada, whether you received advice that it would be helpful to review and clarify the term national security which currently isn’t defined within the act?

Paul Halucha: It’s been something that has been mentioned by I would say think tanks and certain legal firms that represent foreign investors. Again in their efforts to have maximum certainty, they wanted to have a prescribed definition of it or a list the way that some other countries do like the United States.

Elizabeth May: Yes, I think the United States, the U.K., China, Japan and Germany that would have reviews that would be triggered by an actually defined term of national security.

What I’m wondering is whether Industry Canada, whether you’re aware of any studies in the Canadian context that, as you said think tanks have recommended this. It’s in the Canada Gazette from when the 2009 amendments were accepted that there were recommendations at the time that the term national security should be “explicitly defined and national security reviews should take place according to concrete objective and transparent criteria”.

Are you aware of any empirically design studies that would in any way question the benefit of having such defined terms and such transparent reviews?

Paul Halucha: I’m not. We don’t have any studies on that. I’d clarify, it was a policy decision by the government to not have a prescribed definition for national security on the basis that the types of threats that Canada could face from period to period can change. Given the evolving nature of threats, you wouldn’t want to have a definition of national security that precluded you from considering certain specific types of threats.

Elizabeth May: But you’d agree with me that other countries haven’t found a defined term to be an impediment to applying their investment tests in relation to national security.

Matthew Dooley: I would point that the United States, as a clear example, has an non-exhaustive list—it’s exhaustive in that it’s very long, but it’s non-exhaustive in that they can add more to it if they want to. I would argue that they don’t have a clearly defined definition for “this is national security”. What they have done is list their sensitive industries or sectors that they’re going to be concerned about and by the way if another sector comes up, as Mr. Halucha said, the threats change and they’ll add that to the list.

Elizabeth May: Yes, Mr. Dooley, you may find their list exhausting but it’s not exhaustive. In any case, it might be a model we can look at.

Those are all of my questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. May.

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

Tabled in the House of Commons this week, May’s Private Members’ Bill C-484 amends the greenhouse gas emissionsregulations on coal electricity brought in late last year. “This Bill is what the Harper Conservatives would have done if they were serious about climate change,” said Elizabeth May. “Despite his talking points, Peter Kent bowed to the pressure of energy companies and weakened his already-weak greenhouse gas regulations on coal-fired electricity. C-484 shows how easily they could fix the regulations if they wanted to.”

These regulations, roundly criticized and wholly inadequate, sought to limit the greenhouse gasses produced through burning coal to generate electricity, yet contained gaping holes such as a 50 year grace period for plants built after 1986. Bill C-484 would insist that all coal-generated power plants in Canada adhere to the emissions standard, initially proposed by Peter Kent, of 375 tonnes per Gigawatt hour (t/GWh) by 2025.

“Any energy company executive that built a new coal plant in the last few decades was taking a calculated risk; the facts about climate change were already well known,” said Elizabeth May. “This Bill presents a responsible solution to our dirtiest sources of electricity that is both in line with what the science demands and provides sufficient time for Canada to transition our remaining baseload generation toward cleaner sources of energy.”

“How can we expect other countries like China, India, and the US to stop burning coal, when we can’t even manage to stop burning coal ourselves? We can’t be two-faced,” said Adam Olsen, Green Party candidate for Saanich North and the Islands. “Elizabeth’s Bill proposes that we start with our own backyard. It’s the right thing for our economy and for our environment.”

“With Canada’s high GDP and abundance of renewable energy sources we should be natural leaders in clean energy generation,” said Andrew Weaver, Green Party candidate for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and one of Canada’s leading climatologists. “Elizabeth’s private members bill is an important step in Canada’s much needed transition to a prosperous low carbon economy.”

The post Greens speak out for climate action, May explains her new Private Members’ Bill C-484 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

If you have had any exposure to the talking points repeated, ad nauseum, by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister Peter Kent, and Michelle Rempel (Kent’s Parliamentary secretary) on Canada’s actions in reducing Greenhouse gases (GHG), you will have heard that ‘Canada is half way to our Copenhagen target.’ This is the target adopted by Stephen Harper when he attended the climate talks, COP15, in 2009.

It represented the second time Harper weakened Canada’s target. The first, rejecting the Kyoto pledge (6% below 1990 levels by 2012) in 2006, was immediately after he became Prime minister. He cancelled the previous government’s climate plan, which actually would have gotten us quite close to the Kyoto target. Instead, he promised to reduce 2006 levels by 20% by 2020.

The United Nations gathering in Copenhagen was tragically hijacked by a backroom deal, orchestrated by the US, called the ‘Copenhagen Accord.’ Unlike the legally binding Kyoto protocol, The Copenhagen Accord was described as ‘politically binding.’ It also gave Stephen Harper a chance to weaken our target further by adopting the same one announced by Barack Obama – 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. As it happened, Canada’s emissions were higher in 2005 than in 2006—a convenient anomaly that further weakened our pledge.

As well, the Copenhagen Accord included a commitment from signing nations that their collective resolve must avoid allowing the global average temperatures to increase by 2ºC above what they were before the Industrial Revolution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed the collectivity of pledges by the Copenhagen Accord signatories and concluded that the pledges fell far short of avoiding the 2ºC threshold. No matter how you slice it, Copenhagen targets were too little, weak and inadequate.

So, it may be that we are inured to the idea that the target matters. Or it may be that our cognitive processes automatically reject the possibility that the whole government, including departmental reports, can be lying to us.

The February 15 update states: that ‘Canada’s 2020 emissions are projected to be about one-half of the way to the target.’ Before examining the actual claim that we are halfway to the target, let’s underscore the blazingly obvious point that the self-congratulatory sentence confirms—by the date the pledge is due, by the deadline year of 2020, we will have failed to achieve the goal.

Half of What?

Now, let’s look at that claim that in 2020 we will be half way there. In 2005 emissions were 740 Megatons (Mt). 17% of 740 is 126. So Harper’s pledge (17% below 2005 levels by 2020) means, that by 2020, Canada should have reduced by 126Mt.

But the emissions graph used in the Environment Canada report shows our 2020 emissions at 720Mt. Not tough math. 720 is 20 less than 740, and there isn’t any new math in the world that makes 20 half of 126.

So, how can they get away with even attempting to say that 720Mt is half-way to the target?

Well, they have thrown in a red herring.

The graph includes an estimate (the red line) of what they claim would have happened without government action—a ‘business as usual’ figure for 2020 of 850Mt. Not uninteresting, and perhaps of some use for other comparisons, if in fact, the estimate is based on any reasonable assumptions and methodologies. (We will have to guess on that because no set of assumptions or methodologies are disclosed).

To re-state the obvious, the Copenhagen pledge was straight-forward (although weak and inadequate) and no element of the Copenhagen target makes a business-as-usual figure relevant. The imaginary whopping big 850Mt that won’t happen is only useful in confusing the picture.

The Conservatives’ talking points also claim that they have reduced GHG emissions. And it is true that in 2010 emissions were down to 692Mt. This is explained by some provincial actions, but primarily was due to the world- wide recession.

I think it is unlikely that the Prime Minister would claim credit for the recession as a deliberate climate policy.

It is galling to hear the lie repeated over and over that the Conservative policies are responsible for reducing emissions. Especially as emissions are rising rapidly, slated to go from 692Mt in 2010 to 720Mt by 2020.

Maybe no one can absorb the numbers – admittedly, as I write this, I worry there are too many numbers. Environment Canada further complicates the picture by adjusting 2005 levels to 731Mt, making the 2020 reduction only 11Mt).

But the millions of tons of GHG Canada dumps into the global atmosphere really matter. Our trail of broken promises will be noticed, if not in Canada, around the world.

The post Missing the Copenhagen Target appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“It is already unthinkable that the Harper Conservatives would consider putting the interests of the United States before those of the Canadian citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down as a result of the FATCA”, said MP Elizabeth May, “but it is worse still that they would do so in violation of the Canadian Constitution.”

Mr. Hogg’s letter is dated December 12, 2012 and was submitted as part of the call for public comments as part of the ongoing negotiations. “To the extent that any implementing legislation adopts provisions similar to those found in the Model IGA, in my opinion, the legislation would violate s. 15 of the Charter,” he writes. “The source of this problem is the fact that the Model IGA requires financial institutions to treat people differently based on such innate characteristics as place of birth or citizenship.”

The Model IGA that is being proposed would compel Canadian financial institutions to disclose the private financial information of their clients to the IRS. This would be, in Mr. Hogg’s opinion, in clear violation of Section 15(1) of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of “national or ethnic origin”.

“Professor Hogg is Canada’s foremost constitutional expert, so this letter should provide some cause for hope to the one million Canadians, including hundreds of my constituents in Saanich-Gulf Islands, who have been threatened by this financial witch-hunt,” said Elizabeth May. “Yet in a political environment where the Harper Conservatives are willing to push through legislation that is likely unconstitutional, as raised last week in the House of Commons, I will continue to be vigilant on behalf of my constituents and all other Canadians caught up in this sorry mess.”

Note: The Green Party of Canada’s backgrounder on FATCA

The post Implementation of FATCA Likely Unconstitutional, Says Leading Constitutional Expert appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has been a persistent problem in Canada’s economic performance that innovation, as reflected in investments in research and development, is lagging.

The fact that our competitiveness is tied to innovation, and R&D, is not disputed. Neither is the fact that Canadian business investment in R&D has been dropping. It has been in decline whether measured in total dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Last March, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attempted to restructure funds for R&D to stimulate business investment. “Canada is not keeping up with other advanced economies on this crucial front,” Mr. Flaherty told The Globe and Mail.

The policy response in the March 2012 budget was met with widespread skepticism. The Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credit program was overhauled to provide less support for such investments, and relatively more money available for direct grants to companies selected as the lucky winners by government. And that is a strategy with an empirically lousy record. Reducing the SR&ED program by over $500-million, less than half of that was to be re-invested in grants.

In the same Globe and Mail story on these changes, Jayson Myers, chief executive of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, noted “The government will be hard-pressed to show how outcomes will be improved in business R&D if they’re spending less money,” (Barrie McKenna, “Tories target lagging innovation with funding overhaul,” The Globe and Mail, March 29, 2012)

If looking for where government policy has been achieving solid results in innovation, a prime example has been the clean-tech investments made through Sustainable Development Technology Canada. In 19 rounds of funding approvals since SDTC’s creation in 2001, 228 projects have been allocated $560-million in funds. That level of investment has resulted in a highly-successful track record in leveraging funds from other project partners. The ratio is 2.4:1, with $1.4-billion leveraged from $560-million.

The clean-tech sector is one identified globally as having enormous potential. By 2020, it is estimated that the sector will be worth $3-trillion to the world economy.

Certainly, investments in the U.S. have been outpacing Canada. U.S. President Barack Obama’s new tone of resolve in addressing the climate crisis suggests that their previous level of support will be ramping up. Obama highlighted the potential of clean-tech to stimulate the economy and create jobs in his inauguration address: “We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries; we must claim its promise.”

Canada is under-performing here as well, with only one percent of the sector’s current $1-trillion global value. Still, that relatively small piece of the pie is responsible for 52,600 Canadian jobs in 700 clean-tech companies. The sector was worth over $10-billion last year, and that was a jump of 18 per cent over the previous year.

The creation last year of the new Parliamentary all-party clean-tech caucus, chaired by Conservative MP Jay Aspin, has engaged MPs across party lines in the exciting potential for innovation in clean-tech. The sector is making gains in improving the energy efficiency of the mining sector, reducing waste water in the oil sands, cutting deeply into the price differential between renewable and coal to the point that some new wind and solar out-performs coal in terms of price.

A recent report by the Pembina Institute, (Competing in Clean Energy: How Canada Can Capitalize on the Global Transition to Clean Energy, Jan. 22, 2013), based on a forensic review of the sector and extensive interviews, concluded that Canada could expand our clean-tech sector to $60-billion by 2020. That realistic assessment needs to be underscored. We have the potential for six-fold growth over the next seven years.

One of Pembina’s key recommendations to build the sector, creating jobs and export opportunities for Canada, was to ensure replenishment of funds to SDTC in this spring’s budget. Pembina recommended $100-million per year for the next five years. Whether that figure is the right one, or is too low, is a matter for discussion. But it is clear that anyone watching this sector in particular, and the innovation challenge, in general, would conclude it would be a dreadful tragedy to allow the SDTC to vanish for lack of replenishment in this spring’s budget.

Canada’s economy needs greater innovation. And our commitment to reduce greenhouse gases needs a burgeoning clean-tech sector. These goals, environment and economy, are mutually supportive. Getting pricing signals right, setting out a clear energy and climate policy, will all help ensure that Canada does not get left behind in the rapid global pursuit of clean-technology and green alternatives.

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

The post Canada’s innovation is lagging appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In Canada, things are so bad that we don’t even have hypocritical lip service to the crisis. We have silence.

However, over the last month, in a series of statements by some of the most powerful people on Earth, the threat of the climate crisis seems to be on the agenda as never before.

On January 21, President Barack Obama made the issue a key portion of his second inauguration address. He made reference to superstorm Sandy, the heat waves and record-breaking extreme weather events, and said:

‘We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms…

‘We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise.’

Just days later, at the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, delivered a stunning speech. (The International Monetary Fund has done nothing but worsen environmental protections anywhere in the world in which it has delivered a prescription.) Mme Lagarde, having outlined the major threats to global economic stability, stated that climate was a larger threat. Describing it as ‘the greatest economic challenge of the 21st century,’ she said: ‘Increasing vulnerability from resource scarcity and climate change, with the potential for major social and economic disruption; this is the real wild card in the pack.’

In response to a question from the audience, she said: ‘Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.’ That would have be a strong statement from the head of Greenpeace; from the head of the International Monetary Fund, it is jaw-dropping.

Again, within days, the new president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, wrote an opinion piece for the January 28 Washington Post, urging urgent climate action. ‘After the hottest year on record in the United States—a year in which Hurricane Sandy caused billions of dollars in damage, record droughts scorched farmland in the Midwest and our organization reported that the planet could become more than 7 degrees warmer—what are we waiting for? We need to get serious fast. The planet, our home, can’t wait.’

Add to this mix a very tough letter of resignation from US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, lambasting those who undermined his efforts to promote renewable energy and parting shots from outgoing Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and it is hard not to see that a full court press from the Bretton Woods Institutions has lined up behind the US president to demand climate action.

The White House will still face climate deniers and obstructionists and grid-lock in Congress. Recently, some states are considering legislation to mandate that school children be taught anti-science on the climate threat. We are, by no means, assured of action, and if we were, could it be tough enough? It would have to be comprehensive and commit to deep cuts in greenhouse gases to make a real difference. But with the appointment of John Kerry as the new Secretary of State, at least it has renewed hope that the XL Pipeline will be turned down. I will be in Washington before publication of this article to urge that the US Administration reject the pipeline and move to real climate action.

We are running out of time for action. It always seemed that Barack Obama understood the threat. For his first term, he did very little, but he did manage to ensure that the economic stimulus package was focused on green technology. When he spoke of the economic potential of clean technology and green energy in his inauguration address, he was also speaking to a reality he knows well.

For Canada, the potential of clean tech is also substantial. According to a recent report from the Pembina Institute, Canada is falling behind the rest of the world in this key sector. The report estimates that Canada has the potential to build a $60-billion clean tech sector by 2020. We need to alert Canadians to the potential for our economy of acting to reduce greenhouse gases as forcefully as we warn that failure to act could condemn us to an unliveable world.

A series of speeches calling for climate action from unlikely sources is no guarantee of action. Nevertheless, it is significant and suggests that something new is afoot.

The post Is the U.S. finally going to move on the climate crisis? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

9:30 a.m. – Green Leader Elizabeth May will held a press conference to report on her visit last week to Washington, D.C., where she met US government and elected officials to discuss climate change and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Room 130S (Charles Lynch Theatre), Centre Block
Ottawa, Ontario

The post MEDIA ADVISORY: Elizabeth May Press Conference appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Transcribed by Janet Eaton

KN: Green party leader Elizabeth May was in Washington the day that new Secretary of State, John Kerry and our Foreign Affairs minister, John Baird held that key meeting on the pipeline decision. Ms May thanks for joining us. How do you read the tea leaves there -does the pledge by new US Sec State to provide his answer to keystone in the near term- do you think that means this pipeline is heading for approval ?

EMay: I think it’s too soon to say – I’ve been talking to members of the Senate and the Congress here in Washington during my visit over the last number of days and there’s a lot of increased enthusiasm about what President Obama said in his inauguration address about the need for the US to seize leadership on the climate issue, to embrace clean tech, to do much much more to bring down green house gases. And John Kerry
was, before being appointed Secretary of State, a prominent critic of the XL pipeline. So I think we’re a long way from knowing which way this is going to go.

KN: So you’re saying Secretary of State, Kerry, can’t stay true to himself and approve this pipeline.

EMay: Well, that’s a good way of putting it- I mean John Kerry has been on his own for years, I’ve seen him in climate negotiations when he had no other reason to be there except that he was concerned and committed. He showed up in Copenhagen, he showed up in Bali. This is a man who understands the climate issue and now he’s led by a President who’s says the United States is going to take the lead because we owe
it to our children we owe it to our grandchildren and the United States is not going to stand by and watch other countries seize the technologies that get us past fossil fuels. I don’t see John Kerry being at all happy with the prospect of approving Keystone XL – particularly when we know there will be, next weekend, a large demonstration in Washington DC, opposing the Keystone pipeline. It is not going to be a decision that
will sit well with John Kerry if he ends up feeling that he needs to approve it.

KN: But you know – I’ve been reading a couple of recent quotes from the Washington Post e.g. who recently in an editorial said “ignore the activists who have brazenly chosen to make Keystone XL a line- in-the -sand issue” and then there’s a publication Nature-which I think we can both agree is a pretty substantive magazine with scientific peer reviewed findings and it says “The administration should face down critics of the project, ensure that environmental standards are met and then approve it.” Now those are progressive publications. Doesn’t that give Obama some political cover?

EMay: It gets hard to do that when Canada doesn’t have a real climate plan. If Canada was coming – I go back to when Mulroney was the architect of an acid rain plan that worked and the approach was come to the US with clean hands, show the US that we’re taking the appropriate steps in Canada and then asking them to do the same.

In this case what Stephen Harper’s done is to destroy most of our environmental laws, cancel our commitments under Kyoto, behave as a rogue nation in world, and actually have no domestic plan to meet even the weak target that Stephen Harper has set. So how then do we tell Barack Obama- Accept our bitumen crude- We’re going to be good actors on climate. We don’t have credibility to say that which actually undermines the case that the keystone XL pipeline should be approved.

KN: Alright Elizabeth May – thanks for being with us.

EMay: Thank you so much.

The post CTV’s Kevin Newman Interviews Elizabeth May in Washington on the Keystone Pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.