Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

Time to Call Cancer Foundation on its Enbridge Sponsorship

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , ,
Share

The BC Cancer Foundation is ready for your concerns over accepting title sponsorship from controversial oil pipeline builder Enbridge for this year’s annual “Ride to Conquer Cancer” (make that the “Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer”). They even have a handy instruction sheet preparing their staff to deflect your tough questions and subdue your outrage. I should know – I helped draft it (well, sort of).

This past Thursday, reporter Stephen Hui published a leaked internal memo from the BC Cancer Foundation on The Georgia Straight’s blog. The document was a draft list of talking points (scroll down) formulated to deal with the building backlash over the fundraising partnership between the Foundation – which is the fundraising arm of the BC Cancer Agency (a provincial department) and not to be confused in any way with the Cancer Society – and Enbridge Inc.

I first wrote an exposé on the “Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer” in The Common Sense Canadian last November, titled “Oil, Cancer and Bicycles”. 

Interestingly, a number of the sample questions listed in the memo – to which optimal answers are supplied – were copied and pasted directly from my list of emailed questions to the organization last Fall, while others are very similar. For instance (copied or similar phrases in bold):

  • Their talking points question: “Are you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to green wash or soften its public image in BC?”
  • My original question to them: “[Are] you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to greenwash or soften its public image in BC in light of all the controversy its proposed project has generated?”
  • Their talking points question: “Given that the monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, essentially Enbridge is providing funds to the provincial government, can you disclose the amount?”
  • My question: “Given these monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, I have to ask you the specific amount of Enbridge’s financial contribution to the Foundation with regards to this event.”
  • Their talking points question: “How can you accept money from Enbridge, they are a cancer-causing organization? [It’s been proven that Benzene, found in petroleum products, is a carcinogen]. Would you accept money from a tobacco company?”
  • My question: “Is it hypocritical to accept sponsorship from a known cancer-causing company?”

The “best practices” responses provided are a study in the corporate PR art of deflection. You can read them yourself here, but of note to me was the layered responses to the key question – namely, how can you take money for cancer research from a company whose products cause cancer? (I won’t go into that point in detail here – you can read the basis for this contention in my original article – suffice it to say there is considerable evidence that oil and its byproducts cause cancer at various stages of its life cycle). Here are the instructions from the memo – picked up after the initial response isn’t working:

[If pushed on the Benzene/cancer causing questions] I’m not an expert in environmental factors as they relate to cancer. What I can tell you is that the Ride raises more money than any other cancer fundraising event in Canada and these dollars are supporting research with direct impacts on cancer outcomes in this province and across our country.

[If pushed. Verbal answer only] Nationally, Enbridge is in a three year sponsorship agreement for the Ride, which is helping to invest more dollars from the event into critical, live-saving research. The BC Cancer Foundation collects event related feedback from our Ride participants and the public, which will help us to inform future plans and agreements.

In other words, whatever you do, DO NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I had also asked the Foundation whether it felt it was “problematic to be associated with such an unpopular company and project in BC?” (i.e., the controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline). The talking points response: “Ride participation for 2012 is on track to set a new record with over 3,000 riders. This event is very personal to these individuals because they are survivors or are honouring loved ones who have been taken by Cancer.”

And yet, they’re clearly concerned enough to go to the trouble of formulating an internal strategy for dealing with Enbridge blow-back. To date, to my knowledge, only my original column, a subsequent excerpt published in Common Ground Magazine, and the aforementioned Georgia Straight blog have drawn attention in the media to this issue. But with the enormous media focus and public awareness the battle over Enbridge’s pipeline is generating as we speak, that may be about to change.

I suggest it is time for the BC Cancer Foundation to put those talking points to use. After all, practice makes perfect. It is time for the organization – linked through its sole client, the Cancer Agency, to the BC Government – to hear from the public about its deplorable choice to provide a very unhealthy company a platform to greenwash its image at such a pivotal moment in its campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

So go ahead and phone in or email your questions and concerns – and watch for those copied and pasted talking points! (You may even try reading along with them when they go into a given script – I know that one, that’s talking point #8 – my favourite!)

Lest I be accused of being down on cancer research in general, I’ve done a little research of my own – into alternatives to the Enbridge Ride.

Readers who wish to continue supporting cancer research through a cycling activity may choose to divert their funds from the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer to the “Ride2Survive” – described on the organization’s website as “a one-day cycling event from Kelowna to Delta BC to raise funds for cancer research through as an Independent Fundraising Event for the Canadian Cancer Society.” (emphasis mine) The organization also boasts that 100% of the funds raised from the ride go directly to cancer reserach, something few cancer reserach initiatives can claim.

And they don’t take money from Enbridge.

Share

100% Opposition to Enbridge from NEB Hearings in Smithers

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Observer, reporting that every speaker at the recent National Energy Board-led hearings in Smithers into the proposed Enbridge pipeline spoke out against the project. (Jan 17, 2012)

It’s unanimous: all of the interveners who gave testimony to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel in Smithers oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. The Wet’suwet’en, BC Métis and Stikine MLA Doug Donaldson all asserted the Bulkley Valley is shared by different cultures which share a dependence on clean rivers for wild salmon.

Without salmon, none of the communities could thrive. The proposed pipeline puts the wild salmon and other wild food at risk.

The Wet’suwet’en have stood up for their heritage many times in the past.With the Gitxsan First Nation they blockaded logging in their traditional territory in the late 1980s, an action which culminated in the Delgamuukw decision of 1997. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal title is protected by the constitution and oral history can be presented as evidence of title.

Twenty two Wet’suwet’en spoke for about 15 minutes each. They identified themselves by chief status, house and clan, matrilineal lineage, patrilineal lineage, grandparents, mother, father, siblings, number of children and grandchildren.

Read story: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/01/17/enbridge-northern-gateway-joint-review-panel-smithers-finds-100-opposition

Share

Tom Flethcher: Enbridge Gateway Won’t Happen (But Kinder-Morgan Expansion to Vancouver Will)

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , ,
Share

Read this column from Black Press’s Tom Fletcher, predicting that the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline won’t go ahead, while Kinder-Morgan’s plans to twin the Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver will. (Jan. 17, 2012)

After following the opening phase of the National Energy Board’s hearings on the Northern Gateway oil pipeline proposal, I have a prediction.

B.C. will never see this pipeline. And that’s probably the best outcome.

The first reason is the nearly unanimous opposition of informed Kitimat-area residents, led by Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross and skilled local volunteers who described the marine environment of the Kitimat estuary…

…B.C.’s likeliest alternative for oilsands crude is the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, which has been pumping Alberta oil and refined products to the West Coast at Burrard Inlet for nearly 60 years. Port Moody’s Ioco refinery is gone, but Chevron’s Burnaby plant remains, and some crude goes out by tanker or pipeline to refineries south of B.C.

The current owner of Trans Mountain, Kinder Morgan Canada, is naturally watching the Enbridge battle closely. A Kinder Morgan representative provided the following information about tanker traffic from their Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby.

Read column: http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/137496303.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150478275935773_19919729_10150478902555773#f1c0962d74c6416

 

Share

Audio: Damien Talks EthicalOil.org, Harper and Enbridge on CHLY

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , , ,
Share

Get MP3 (51 MB)

Listen to Damien Gillis on CHLY’s A Sense of Justice from last week, discussing Enbridge and Kinder-Morgan’s proposed Tar Sands pipelines through BC. Damien and host Rae Kornberger cover the National Energy Board’s recently-begun hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat and the contention by fake grassroots group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government that foreign interests are behind BC’s opposition to the project. Is there any truth to these claims and what is the relationship between EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government? (41 min – from Jan. 11)

Share

More on EthicalOil.org and Harper: Hamish Marshall Hosts Websites for Joe Oliver, John Cummins and EthicalOil.org

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, , , ,
Share

Read this in-depth report from DeSmogBlog.org exposing more connections between “astroturf” group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Conservatives. (Jan 14, 2012)

The Ethical Oil-Harper government revolving door doesn’t end there. Hamish Marshall is married to EthicalOil spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall, who took over last fall when her predecessor Alykhan Velshi moved into the Prime Minister’s Office as the director of planning.

Hamish Marshall, through strategicimperativesonline, has registered 32 websites. Nearly all are connected to EthicalOil.org, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the right wing Alberta Wildrose Alliance Party.

Both ethicaloil.org’s americans4opec.com and chiquitaconflict.com are hosted on the server, as is Kathryn Marshall’s personal website, kathrynmarshall.ca…

The web gets really interesting when you look at the other sites registered on Marshall’s server.

Conservative Party candidates with websites hosted on Hamish Marshall’s server include Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, one of the most vocal proponents of the tar sands. Oliver’s open letter last week refers to the “environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade”. See the WhoIs profile for www.JoeOliver.ca.

Read article: http://www.desmogblog.com/cozy-ties-astroturf-ethical-oil-and-conservative-alliance-promote-tar-sands-expansion

Share

Leaked Memo Shows Cancer Foundation Facing Criticism Over Enbridge Sponsoring its “Ride to Conquer Cancer”

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

Read this story form The Georgia Straight online, which reveals a leaked internal talking points memo at the BC Cancer Foundation to address growing criticism its title sponsor for the annual “Ride to Conquer Cancer” – controversial oil pipeline builder, Enbridge. (Jan 12, 2012)

Critics of Enbridge and its title sponsorship of the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer like to note that petroleum, which is the company’s business, is a source of carcinogens, such as benzene. And the B.C. Cancer Foundation is obviously hearing about these concerns.

The Georgia Straight has obtained a revised draft of talking points about the Enbridge sponsorship set to be circulated by the foundation to its staff. The Q&A is intended to help foundation staff deal with questions from the public on its acceptance of money from a “cancer-causing organization” and other related matters.

Read memo: http://www.straight.com/article-583381/vancouver/talking-points-show-bc-cancer-foundation-facing-tough-questions-enbridge-sponsorship

Share

Clark, Harper, Enbridge Taking Suicidal Risks With BC’s Future

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Today, because events are moving so quickly, a twofer for you.
 
First, Premier Clark is in one hell of a jam and it’s scarcely improved with a man who I bet left the inner staff of Attila the Hun to join with Madam Photo-op by name of Ken Boessenkool, who amongst other clients worked as lobbyist for Enbridge for two years! What the hell reason could she give for this kind of move?

This woman is out of control. She’s in a political hotbox like President Gerry Ford was when he took over the mess Nixon left him. In fact she’s in a box Houdini couldn’t have escaped.

She’s trying to distance herself from the disgraceful reign of Gordon Campbell and now finds herself in the midst of the worst environmental fight probably in history. The proposed Enbridge Pipeline and resultant tanker traffic is straight from the Gordon Campbell/Fraser Institute playbook and it isn’t working out quite like the Liberal advisors had expected. In fact, Clark is facing, and knows she’s facing a political storm that makes Bill Vander Zalm’s troubles look like a kid’s fight in a sand box.

The trouble is, the public is onto them. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a rupture or spill is inevitable and that the word “risk” has been replaced by “certainty”. Clark has this problem: the project only has the support of the “right” and the pretty far right at that. This problem wasn’t seen by the likes of Patrick Kinsella and other handlers – it’s called believing your own bullshit.

The NDP, and, of course the Greens have staked out the “no bloody way” voters and you might think well, so what’s the problem?

It’s called The Conservative Party and John Cummins. Without them, Clark might have been able to hold all the non NDP vote and been able to hold on. I doubt that because the government is in deep doo doo on so many fronts. With the Conservatives in the picture it’s Adrian Dix’s dream come true. Not only is their enemy divided but he has a good chance with the voter who perhaps doesn’t like anybody very much but tends to vote right rather than left.

If Ms. Clark were surrounded by happy campers, perhaps the Libs could hang on. The cold fact is that she only had one caucus member who supported her leadership and because he was given a cabinet seat – and then screwed up – she has a nest of adders in her caucus, many of whom will be looking at their own ridings and grasping at the life saver as they jump ship.

The pipeline/tanker issue has Clark buried. She knows it’s a terrible idea for the province and the people but can’t say so because she’ll lose her supporters.

She can’t say yes without jeopardizing her election chances.

She’s apparently without sufficient courage to say “no” and say “to hell with the right”, inside or outside the party, run on that stance then say, “Mr. Dix, we both agree on the pipeline/tanker issue now lets get down to the issue of which party should run this province.”
 
She doesn’t have the jam to do that so even the faint chance of a May 2013 victory is all but gone.

————————————————————————————————————————

Secondly, let us get some things straight for the times ahead – there will be leaks and spills from the pipeline and tankers no matter how much trouble Enbridge goes to avoid them. We’re being asked to commit environmental suicide – by Enbridge, the federal government and, by strong inference, Premier Clark.
 
My old and perhaps late friend, Bud Smith, says we cannot demand perfection. The trouble is, that is precisely what is demanded from Enbridge and its tanker clients because anything less will permanently damage the world’s last great rainforest – it cannot be remedied.
 
The route Enbridge’s pipelines would travel is for the most part inaccessible except by helicopter, meaning that even if there were measures to fix an oil spill (there aren’t) there is no way it could be handled (see map below).

The proposed pipeline crosses several mountain ranges and nearly 1000 rivers and streams, including at least three major ones where hundreds of thousands of salmon spawn. This is a region which caribou, grizzly bears, other species of bear, including the rare Spirit Bear, deer and moose inhabit. It is, in short, an ecological treasure.
 
But let’s play along with Enbridge and let’s say that there is only a one in 100 chance of a leakage. Look at the map and see where that 1 in 100 is going to strike…are you going to gamble away our wilderness on these odds?
 
Forget about the environment for a moment and look at it as a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the leakage will come in a wilderness which will likely be only reachable by helicopter making any equipment for a clean-up out of the question, is the financial gain to BC worth this likely consequence?
 
This is a critical question, for the record is clear – you simply cannot clean up an oil spillage wherever it may occur.
 
The fact is, except for a few low paying white collar jobs there is no gain for BC. We are letting Enbridge use our wilderness to transfer Alberta’s toxic gunk to Kitimat to be shipped down our highly sensitive coast line to Asia and America. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I don’t want to deal with economics here but simply the wilderness of the province of British Columbia.
 
We must understand that Enbridge has an unbelievably bad track record. Since 2002 their American subsidiaries alone racked up 170 leaks, and the company itself had a staggering 610 leaks from 1999-2008, including a 2007 explosion in Minnesota that killed two men and brought it $2.4 million in fines – this in addition to a 2003 gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 in Ontario. More recently there is the Kalamazoo River spill in July 2010 which will never be cleaned up.
 
I leave it thusly:
 
Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?

Share

Premier Christy Clark Taps Ex-Enbridge Lobbyist as New Chief of Staff

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this story form the Vancouver Sun, reporting that BC Premier Christy Clark has replaced her Chief of Staff Mike MacDonald with career lobbyist and federal Conservative adviser Ken Boessenkool – whose former clients include controversial pipeline builder Enbridge Inc. (Jan. 13, 2011)

Flagging in the polls, and with just 16 months to go before the next election, Premier Christy Clark has replaced her chief of staff with an influential Conservative strategist who has lobbied on behalf of Enbridge.

Ken Boessenkool, who has served as a senior adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, will start as Clark’s chief of staff on Feb. 15, and is expected to make just under $200,000.

The move not only provides new leadership in Clark’s office, but also helps bolster her Conservative credentials at a time she faces attacks from the upstart right-wing B.C. Conservative Party.

Boessenkool worked on three federal campaigns with Harper, reportedly playing a key role in the campaign’s inner sanctum during 2011.

He has been a key adviser to Reform party founder Preston Manning and to Stockwell Day, former leader of the Canadian Alliance Party.

Boessenkool is also an influential federal lobbyist, having worked on behalf of dozens of top-flight clients including Enbridge, which is now pushing for a major pipeline across B.C.’s north.

Share

Groups Opposing Enbridge Worried They May Lose Their Charitable Status

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, , ,
Share

Read this story form The Globe and Mail about the fears some environmental organizations face of losing their charitable status as a punishment for speaking up against the controversial proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Jan 13, 2012)

Environmentalists are fearful that the Conservative government is planning to limit their advocacy role after Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained that groups flush with “foreign money” are undermining a controversial pipeline review.

Mr. Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver stoked activists’ fears in recent days by lashing out at environmental groups that have taken money from U.S. donors to build opposition to the $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry oil-sands bitumen to the British Columbia coast.

The Conservative-dominated Commons finance committee is set to begin a review of the charity sector, and several activists say government MPs have told business groups that the committee will look at the environmental sector’s transparency, its advocacy role and the flow of funds from outside the country.

PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall dismissed as “speculation” the concerns that the government is targeting the environmental sector. He said Ottawa is focused on streamlining the environmental-review process so that groups can’t employ delaying tactics, echoing Mr. Oliver’s pledge to introduce new rules in the coming months…

…But John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, isn’t reassured.

“I’m quite convinced that we’re the next on the hit list of this government that doesn’t know how to find compromises but only bully people,” Mr. Bennett said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/foes-of-northern-gateway-pipeline-fear-revoking-of-charitable-status/article2298276/

Share
Team

EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , , , ,
Share

The various spokespeople for supposed “grassroots” pro-Tar Sands and pipeline organization EthicalOil.org have steadfastly maintained their campaign has no connection to the oil and gas industry or the Harper Government. But as the links between these groups continue to pile up, that contention becomes harder and harder to swallow.

I witnessed conservative pundit Ezra Levant debut his “Ethical Oil” concept when he came to Vancouver to debate the Wilderness Committee’s Ben West in late 2010. The premise Levant laid out at the Rio Theatre – essentially, that bitumen from Canada is the “fair trade coffee” of the world’s oil supply because this country has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia or Iran – was being parroted soon thereafter by newly minted Environment Minister Peter Kent.

The synchronicity of talking points between Ethical Oil, Enbridge, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (the oil and gas industry’s official lobby) and the Harper Government should be our first clue that these entities are working together on some level.

“Ethical Oil” didn’t just spring from nowhere – it was carefully conceived in the manner of major advertising campaigns and the work of Republican strategist Frank Luntz (who coined “the death tax” in order to push lower estate taxes, and encouraged the Bush Administration to re-frame global warming as “climate change”, for instance). In fact, what we are presently witnessing around the Enbridge debate is the full-force implementation of American-style political campaign tactics – where everything is built around a single, simple concept – like “socialist” Obama-care (right!), “tough on terror”, or Orwellian distortions like the “Patriot “Act – which, no matter how illogical, gain traction through relentless, monosyllabic repetition, delivered via the triple threat of corporate media, government and corporate-backed lobbies, “think tanks” and pr firms.

It remains to be seen how effective these tactics will be with Canadians. Already there has been some surprising push-back in the mainstream media – from Stephen Hume’s shrewd analysis in the Vancouver Sun this week, to tough questions from CTV News and the CBC’s Evan Solomon (a must-watch) and Anna-Maria Tremonti (a must-listen) in recent weeks. At least some of the nation and province’s top political commentators aren’t falling for the Ethical Oil routine.

The parallel messaging extends to the notion of “foreign meddling” in the National Energy Board review of Enbridge’s proposal, now underway. The contention – from both Ethical Oilers and Stephen Harper, Industry Minister Joe Oliver and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty – is that because some large US philanthropies are donating money to campaigns in BC opposing Enbridge’s proposal, the decision making process is being “hijacked” by “radical environmentalists” fronting for American interests. I won’t go into this argument any further – for Stephen Hume and Terry Glavin of the Ottawa Citizen have both nailed the subject in their columns this week. The main point I wish to make is the extraordinary parity of messages coming from two entities that allegedly have no connection. 

We don’t know where Ethical Oil’s funding derives from – it’s certainly not from $10 grassroots donations! – but here’s what we do know about the connections of this organization and its spokespeople to the federal Conservative government:

1. Ezra Levant is the former publisher of the conservative magazine the Western Standard, author of the book Ethical Oil and host of a political talk show on the Sun News Network. He is also the man who stepped aside for Stephen Harper in a 2002 byelection in Calagry Southwest so that the new Alliance Party leader could win a seat in parliament. Levant was apparently reluctant to do so at first, but eventually ceded to public pressure – thus doing a big favour for the future Prime Minister.  

Prior to that bit of political gallantry, Levant had a long history of campaigning for key Reform/Alliance candidates. According to Wikipedia, “While he was a student-at-law, Levant was an active political organizer in the Reform Party, and guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer (as the campaign manager for his nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona and later as his communications-director during the 1997 Federal Election) and Rob Anders to win party nominations. In 1997, he went to Ottawa to work for the Reform Party, becoming a parliamentary aide to party leader Preston Manning and being put in charge of Question Period strategy.”

Mr. Levant has also worked at both the right-wing Fraser Institute and the Charles G. Koch Institute – a think tank sponsored by the Texas oil billionaire family which is one of the leading financial backers of both the Republic Party machine and the oil lobby.

2. Levant resigned his duties as EthicalOil.org spokesperson soon after he launched the book and website, handing the role over to one Alykhan Velshi. A 29-year old lawyer, Velshi has been a top Conservative staffer for a number of years. He served as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s director of parliamentary affairs and communications until the 2011 federal election. Prior to that he worked for then-Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird.

In 2011, Velshi briefly left the Harper Government to lead EthicalOil.org, only to return to Parliament Hill in late fall 2011 as the director of planning for the Prime Minister’s Office, no less.

Mr. Velshi’s mom also recently obtained a plum appointment by Industry Minister Joe Oliver (he who dismissed Enrbridge’s legions of opponents as a handful of environmental radicals in a recent open letter) to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Opposition was quick to slam the hire as a patronage appointment. NDP MP Charlie Angus told Embassy Magazine, “There are a lot of credible engineers out there, but there’s not a lot of credible engineers whose sons are closely tied to the prime minister, Jason Kenney, and their ethical oil campaign for the tar sands. This is another case of who you know in the PMO.”

3. Mr. Velshi handed off the Ethical Oil baton to a 26-year old conservative law student at the University of Calgary named Kathryn Marshall this past fall. According to the Ottawa Citizen, it turns out Ms. Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Harper’s former strategic planning manager.

Watch Marshall get slaughtered by Evan Solomon on Inside Politics (note how Ms. Marshall refuses a dozen times to divulge whether her organization is bankrolled by Enbridge – if you still believe the Ethical Oil argument after watching this, I’m afraid you’re beyond help):

It is also worth noting as an aside that former Conservative minister David Emerson is today helping the Chinese buy into the Tar Sands.  In 2009 Mr. Emerson became a member of the International Advisory Council for the Chinese Investment Management Corporation, which recently purchased an $801 million stake in Tar Sands properties near Peace River, Alberta. This on top of a long list of major recent Chinese investments in the Tar Sands. And of, of course, Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently revealed that it was one of 10 companies which ponied up $10 million each to sponsor Enbridge’s campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline – some of the others we know about are major multi-national players based in Europe and the United States. Talk about foreign intervention in Canadian pipeline politics!

You can bet the Ethical Oil crew and Harper Government will carry on with the exact same talking points and revolving door connections, all the while maintaining the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.

It’s all just a big coincidence.

And if you believe that I’ve got some pond-front property in northeast Alberta you might like to buy.

Share