Category Archives: Politics

Oil, China and Why David Emerson Wants Alberta to Start Paying Taxes

Oil, China and why David Emerson wants Alberta to start paying taxes

Canada, Economics, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar Sands
Share

Alberta Premier Alison Redford recently took the unprecedented step of holding a “State of the Province” Address. This hauntingly American-style public relations stunt came about as a result of the longstanding work of behind-the-scenes chief architect of Canada as an Energy Superpower, David Emerson.

Here at the Common Sense Canadian we have tracked in some detail the efforts of former Harper Government Trade Minister David Emerson and his role as Chair of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC). We have noted that while Mr. Emerson garners little coverage in mainstream media, his fingerprints can be found on every aspect of Canada’s evolution into a petro state. The corporate-driven policy “think tank” EPIC is the instrument of Emerson’s work.

This, we demonstrated, was evident when premiers took centre stage in Nova Scotia last summer to talk up Canada’s “National Energy Strategy”, while exploring “what was in it for every Canadian.” A central talking point dictated by Emerson and his EPIC communications shop in the exhaustive National Energy Strategy package he provided to all of the nation’s premiers, energy ministers and the PMO/PCO.

We underscored how this was just the tip of the iceberg in a longstanding trend where Emerson and EPIC drafted, promoted and delivered every recent development we have seen on the energy file. From the National Energy Strategy, through the raft of legislative changes we have seen since Harper came to power, including the paradigm shift in environmental policies dictating resource exploitation contained in the recent Omnibus Bills.

We undertook an exhaustive campaign, which grew exponentially in response to the secretive processes surrounding the establishment of the FIPA treaty, and we pointed to Emerson’s time in office as Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway (before returning to the private sector in 2008 to work for the China Investment Corporation) where he claimed that establishing the Chinese FIPA was his “ultimate goal.” And we did our best to stop it.

Today we are going to explore Emerson’s role in what is being billed as a “once in a generation” restructuring of the Province of Alberta,establishing a New Normal, while the Province prepares to ratchet up Tar Sands production to meet the five-fold increase the Harper government and industry outlined as their shared goal early in the Conservative mandate.

For decades the Alberta Advantage defined that Province as the apparent envy of the nation. No Provincial sales tax, capital tax, payroll tax or health premiums was the “advantage” Albertan’s enjoyed as a result of their oil bounty. This was the foundation of a mountain of oily rhetoric that promoted self-reliance, hard work, small government, no taxes, cheap fuel and lots of toys – all of which defined “freedom” in the public psyche of Alberta.

Enter David Emerson.

Albertans have come to accept that oil wealth does not translate into cheap gasoline for their huge trucks. They have come to understand that small government means less service, but are proud to dig deep for the services they want, because they are “self-reliant”. They know first hand the environmental impact of a massive exploitation agenda and are aware of the “myth” of climate change. But, can they accept that much like death, provincial taxes are inevitable?

Can they accept that not even a massive escalation in oil production can balance budgets?

Massive escalation of Tar Sands production is the undercurrent that drives the entire Albertan frame of mind. You can feel it in the streets, at the coffee shops and on the “highway of death” that leads to the EPIC undertaking of the internationally-renowned Tar Sands, the largest industrial activity known to man.

It is therefore widely known that much of the Alberta advantage is oil-driven cultural myth, however the one thing no one can deny is there are no provincial taxes. This is evident in every purchase Albertans make, and apparently this daily reminder is enough to perpetuate the advantage myth and condition the average Albertan to accept foreign interests infiltrating their natural resource bounty, running off with the profits and leaving them to hold the environmental and fiscal bag.

Clearly the real Alberta Advantage falls in favour of foreign investment and almost entirely at the expense of average Albertans. Redford’s whole “State of the Province Address”, while predicated on myth, does forecast a 6 Billion dollar deficit in the March budget. Yes, thats right, oil rich Alberta, at a time when production rates have never been as high, is filing a SIX BILLION dollar shortfall in oil royalties.

So what does David Emerson have to do with all of this? We have established that Emerson and his shop are the architects of the real Alberta Advantage, steeped largely in favour of foreign interests – and now Albertans are experiencing first hand how he operates.

But what might come as a surprise to even Albertans is Emerson’s role in “reshaping” their future.

As appointed chair of the Alberta Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy (thanks to former premier Ed Stelmach who leaned hard on Emerson to get him through the battle over Royalties), Emerson has skillfully guided the policy fix – once again from the behind the scenes and on behalf of the largest most powerful companies on earth – and the Chinese Government.

His intention? The end of the Alberta “no taxes” advantage with a “broad based long term approach,” for which they have been priming the pump for years.

The reason? The corporate fabricated Bank-Backed Bitumen Bubble.

Former ICBC CEO and respected independent economist Robyn Allan skillfully analyzes this most current myth-making that EPIC puppet Premier Redford has put at the centre of her “once in a generation” restructuring. In a recent piece, Allan bursts the Bitumen Bubble the EPIC-affiliated propagandists have blown way out of proportion, which sets out Alberta’s “New Normal.”

Industry and government talking heads are singing from the Bitumen Bubble song sheet, and Allan rips it to shreds in her in-depth, rock-solid analysis, proving that much of the current fearmongering surrounding the finances of oil exports is indeed a bubble of hot air. “The narrative goes like this,” she writes. “Resistance to oil pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain’s twinning means an ever increasing supply glut in the U.S. Midwest, forcing the price of Western Canadian crude oil downwards as compared to the North American crude oil benchmark West Texas Intermediate — WTI.”

The implication is that oil sands operators would get more value if they could just access new markets via new supply routes. Allan demonstrates this is hogwash, built on some very fuzzy math and ignoring the fact that Alberta bitumen is a low-quality, expensive-to-process product which has and always will fetch bottom dollar compared with more favourable alternatives.

The bottom line of Allan’s analysis, is that we are being misled and that lack of access to new markets is not the real problem contributing to Alberta’s gargantuan debt, nor will access to new markets via BC fix it. Only reasonable, responsible royalty rates can balance Alberta’s budgets, protect and secure the Alberta Advantage and avoid a complete restructuring of the province.

Here is the hot air EPIC’s propagandists are using to restructure the Alberta Advantage. By blowing up the Bitumen Bubble and handing the advantages of oil to his corporate colleagues, Emerson’s fix is to dump the disadvantages onto average Albertans.

Instead of simply fixing budget shortfalls by establishing responsible royalty rates on massively escalating production rates, Albertans will be treated to a sleight of hand, by funnelling puny royalties into a new fund called “Shaping Alberta’s Future”. A two year-old Emerson recommendation now topped off with his shafting of Albertans by exploring the “expenditure side of the ledger.” I.e. deep cuts and reduced services. But the kicker, of course, the end of “no taxes.”

How does Emerson think he is going to strip Albertans of the last modicum of the Alberta Advantage that has long been the pride of Alberta? Can his propagandists shift the public psyche and alter the longstanding reality Albertans have clung to as their one distinguishing factor?

Here is Emerson in his own words:

The culture of Alberta has been built around low or no taxes for many decades. It’s not going to be an overnight psychological shift for the people of the province. My own view is you have to start first on the expenditure side and be fairly broad-based and multi-year in your approach.

In other words, start by cutting services, then phase in taxes over several years so people don’t get quite so hopping mad.

Redford parrots Emerson’s view. “It’s about this being a new reality and us having to face that,” she said in a recent interview.

In a conference call Monday with more than 5,000 members of her Conservative Party, Redford confirmed the province will borrow to pay for new infrastructure, such as roads and schools, and did not rule out the possibility that Albertans will one day be subject to a provincial sales tax.

So Alberta, looks like you have won! The race to the bottom that is, and with EPIC’s Emerson as your jockey. And you all thought it was Alberta telling British Columbians what to do! 

But don’t worry, he has been “shaping the future” of BC for decades, as onetime chair of the BC Progress Board – not to mention CEO of Canfor, the BC Transmission Corporation, the Western Bank of Canada, the BC Trade Development Corp and a directorship at BC Gas…to mention just a few significant BC-specific posts Emerson has held.

Just look at the shape we are in! Our oil and gas deficits are merely a third of what you are looking at. Relax and enjoy the ride. It will be EPIC.

Share
Environmental 'Process' a Myth in Stephen Harper's Canada

Environmental ‘Process’ a Myth in Stephen Harper’s Canada

Canada, Politics
Share

It’s past time that we began to examine the word “process” as it relates to the environment. It has become, you see, a federal buzz word for sacrificing the environment while making it look all nice and legal.

Last fall, I, along with Ben West of the Wilderness Committee, spoke to a group at a North Vancouver church hall. Conservative MP John Weston was there and chose to deal with C-38, the infamous Budget Bill which was also an omnibus bill. He chose to take the mic and defend the erasure of protection of fish habitat. In fact, he defended this outrageous section by saying it provided “process”. Moreover he claimed that this was why he supported Bill C-38.

He was lying through his teeth – he supported Bill C-38 because it was the budget. Moreover, he couldn’t have even argued with the section slashing habitat protections from the Fisheries Act because that would have been tantamount to opposing the budget and he would have been unceremoniously tossed out of Caucus and denied the right to run again on the Conservative ticket.

“Process” is a weasel word to disguise the fact that there will be no meaningful process at all.

Let’s go back a step or two. Some things we have decided to protect by denying anyone the privilege of interfering with it. Our national and provincial parks are thus protected. You cannot take a piece of a park and say, “I want to cut this down or dig it up or whatever so please tell me what the ‘process’ is that I must follow.”

I often put it to Lower Mainland readers that Stanley Park might be a good place to log, always reforesting as you go. It would provide jobs for several years and bring a lot of money into the city. So let’s set up a “process”.

“Bugger that!” would be the cry you would hear loud and clear. “Stanley Park is not for desecration, no matter what the reason.”

Would this change if a process was in place where the people could advise the logging company what environmental practices should be followed? Count that as a rhetorical question.

“Process” to Weston and his gang means holding hearings that do not involve the question of whether or not the public agrees with the plan but only deals with whatever safeguards should be adopted and at any rate, the government doesn’t need to pay any attention to whatever recommendations are put forward. In fact, the Harper government has made it clear that the proposed Enbridge pipeline will go ahead irrespective of what the Environmental hearings recommend.

Now, there is another thing we must ponder when considering trusting our environment to governments and their process.

For not only is it insulting to citizens’ intelligence to tell them that there is a “process” in place – doubly insulting if licenses are awarded, with limitations, when those limitations are not enforced.

Last week we learned – surprise! – that private river power operations (IPPs) in southwest BC racked up a staggering 749 environmental violations in 2010 alone, with virtually no consequences for the companies responsible. Spawning salmon are being trapped in pools downstream from private power dams and dying! In response, the Executive Director of the private power lobby, Paul Kariya, said words that, in effect, equated to “shit happens”.

The Federal Department Of Environment expressed some concerns about environmental protection generally and told us how rather than enforcing the law they were working with the miscreants in a cooperative way.

The truth is that there is virtually no investigation or enforcement at all. In the case of Fish Farmers, one of the first things the incoming Campbell government did was return all the fines levied against them when the NDP were in power and enforced the laws.

Private river power operators are permitted to police themselves. Why aren’t they being watched and dealt with? Do we really believe that when the water subsides the IPPs, rather than risk the salmon, they will shut down or decrease the water (and revenues) flowing through their pipes?

We in the fight for the environment have, naturally, concentrated on the big pictures. We haven’t paid enough attention to the extent of the crimes being visited upon our environment by Fish Farmers, IPPs and pipelines now in existence.

In my view, the Opposition NDP, who have funds for research, ought to do just that on the matters I’ve raised.

And do it now.

Share
Environment Still an Afterthought to BC Media in Election Run-up

Environment still an afterthought to BC media in election run-up

Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Media, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture
Share

Mike Smyth gave us a full page story of his interview with Adrian Dix in the Sunday Province without a word on the environment!

What’s with these guys at Postmedia? Are the thousands upon thousands of hits that organizations like the Wilderness Committee, and yes, the Common Sense Canadian, garner meaningless? Can it be that a handful of NDP supporters visit our websites 1000’s of times a day?

For reasons that escape me, Dix is getting a free ride in the capitalist press.

At least Fazil Mihlar, when he was editor of the Sun’s editorial pages up until recently, kept the faith with the far right, as this Fellow of the Fraser Institute flooded the op-ed pages with articles by anyone who’d kiss the ass of the fish farmers, coal miners, pipeline companies, the tanker people and so on. And we’ve long given up on star Suncolumnist Vaughn Palmer’s ability to ask a tough question of anyone or say something that even barely qualifies as controversial – but Mike was beginning to draw some blood in both major political camps.

There is, evidently, a strong aversion in the mainstream media to talk about the environment and I can only guess why. Was the Kalamazoo spill by Enbridge too complicated to deal with? And the 800+ other spills by this wretched despoiler of the outdoors?

Is the question of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline too difficult to analyze, the issues being the same as the proposed Enbridge line?

Are we having trouble dealing with dilbit, the chemical-laced bitumen that it is proposed to be piped through our mountains and valleys into tankers to ply the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest? Is it too time consuming to let readers know of the disastrous difference between bitumen spills and the stuff with which the Exxon Valdez polluted our waters and killed our fish and birds?

What about LNG? (Liquified Natural Gas) Is it beyond the abilities of the Sun and the Province to deal with the environmental issues surrounding fracking, which, by drilling first vertically, then horizontally, pumps out gas from between layers of shale? Where do the enormous volumes of water required for this process come from? After it’s laced with poisonous chemicals and the result pumped underground to crack open the shale, where does it go? Into the water table? Are there potential consequences of stability to the earth’s crust – such as this recentreport from the BC Oil and Gas Commission suggests?

What about fish farms? The Province and Sun have avoided this issue like the plague, with the notable exception of Mihlar, who seems to have given a free pass to the fish farms when they wanted the op-ed page.

What of the desecration of farmland, especially in the Delta area?

Adrian Dix has taken stands on these issues – sort of. He’s against Enbridge but silent on Kinder Morgan. If Kinder Morgan proceeds there will be unbelievable risks from tankers in Vancouver Harbour right out until the open ocean is reached.

The NDP have approved of LNG plants for the northern coast. Does this mean that they are unconcerned about the threat pipelines pose to the fauna and flora they pass through? Does this mean they have satisfied themselves that fracking poses no environmental concerns?

And with the same concerns applying to Kinder Morgan as with Enbridge, how can Mr. Dix condemn the latter while being undecided about the former?

Mr. Dix seems to be concerned about fish farms, but what would he do about them?

And what about the private power catastrophe which has ruined or will soon ruin some 75 rivers while bankrupting BC Hydro? Mr. Dix seems to be against them but what would he do about them? Hydro is presently on the hook for $50 BILLION dollars from these thieves in three piece suits.

Meanwhile, another multi-billion-dollar Hydro boondoggle and environmental calamity awaits us with the proposed Site C Dam – which wouldflood over 12,000 acres of farmland and wilderness to provide subsidized electricity to new mines and gas operations. The NDP has been on the fence at best with this massive project.

Mr. Dix seems to believe that a clean fight is on its way. Is this because he doesn’t want the Liberals to deal with the little matter of outright forgery he committed to save Glen Clark’s scalp in the Pilarinos scandal?

Politics is a blood sport in BC and will be in spite of the hypocrisy of Mr Dix.

The Common Sense Canadian, being devoted to environmental issues. will likely support the NDP in the May election but this doesn’t mean we support handling Mr. Dix or anyone else with kid gloves.

All we really ask is for an informed public, something apparently anathema to the Postmedia and David Black papers.

Get with it you guys – the environment is a huge issue and you have a duty to get it in all aspects on the table.

Share
Idle No More - Scenes from a Vancouver Train Station

Rafe Mair: Why BC’s First Nations should refuse Harper meetings…for now

Canada, First Nations, Politics
Share

I do not pretend for a second to know what is on the mind of First Nations leaders who have been skeptical of “Crown-First Nations” meetings such as took place this past Friday and the follow-ups currently being scheduled. Leaders like Union of BC Indian Chiefs’ Grand Chief Sewart Phillip and chiefs from Manitoba, Ontario and some from Saskatchewan have chosen to sit this latest round of talks out. Nor do I know what would change their minds on attending future conferences.

I do pretend to know something about politics.

National Assembly (AFN) Chief Shawn Atleo is a controversial political leader and how else could it be? His Assembly is supposed to represent First Nations throughout the nation. He doesn’t in real life and that is to be expected. His leadership is constantly in question – particularly from members of the “grassroots” Idle No More movement. This pressure has apparently taken its toll, as following Friday’s meeting, Atleo announced he was going on a “brief” sick leave.

On the other hand, while Stephen Harper doesn’t have every Canadian behind him, by reason of our “first past the post” system, he is a dictator so long as he is Prime Minister. Right from the get-go that makes conferences between the two parties difficult unto impossible.

The concerns of each band of First Nations not only are inconsistent with one another, how could that be otherwise?

Here are some facts:

  • Total Aboriginal population of BC: Approximately 200,000
  • Total number of Indian bands in BC: Approximately 200
  • Total number of eligible B.C. First Nations/Indian bands in the treaty process: 116

To complicate matters, most nations or regions have unique languages and dialects.

At the root of claims is land and these claims differ from band to band within BC, let alone within the country. Some land claims have been disposed of by treaty (often unfairly), while in BC, the vast majority are not under treaty and are subject to land claims being dealt with at a glacial pace. Moreover, many First Nations want nothing to do with the process.

The situation reminds one of Israel, where an Israeli government can claim it wants to settle borders with Palestinians yet continues to build on land which is part of the pre-1967 land owned by Palestinians. With First Nations, the BC and Canadian governments are permitting development of Indian land without a by-your-leave.

Again, while I have no insight into all the considerations of BC First Nations, let me tell you what I would feel if I was in Grand Chief Phillip’s mind or that of any BC chief’s position.

I would refuse to deal with Federal Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs and Northern Development John Duncan, who has consistently supported salmon farms, which many coastal First Nations vehemently oppose. His presence is like the red flag to the bull.

I would refuse any part of a meeting with the Feds until that part of the past budget that took away from protection of fish habitat is repealed.

There would be no parley until both the provincial and federal governments stopped approving of fish farms and mandated a removal to land of all existing farms.

I would demand both levels of governments respect the clearly stated position of Treaty 8 First Nations in northeast BC, who oppose Site C dam based on their treaty rights.

Similarly I would demand an immediate moratorium of all proposed pipelines until all Native claims are settled and I would demand that all tanker traffic – be it from Prince Rupert, Kitimat or Vancouver Harbour – be banned by legislation.

I would require that the recommendations of the Cohen Commission Report put in place immediately.

Finally, I would require any environmentally objectionable project be put to local residents as to the need for them in the first place and that this be done before any environmental hearings take place.

These gestures and actions would be a condition precedent to any parley with the feds.

Why would any BC Chief be bound to accept any resolutions unless they are consistent with their needs, desires and historical claims?

The meeting which was just held and is supposed to reconvene seeks to find a one-size-fits-all, whether specifically or in principle. Why should Grand Chief Phillip, who has a mandate to deal with BC matters, accept a conference which by its nature seeks solutions on a one-size-fits-all basis?

It’s not parochial to point out that decisions will cater to larger populations with the powers of persuasion they possess.

Given the obvious lack of interest by the Harper and Clark governments in the basic concerns of BC First Nations, it would be folly for local leaders to enter a process in which they have little to gain and a great deal to lose.

Share
John Doyle

Shooting the Messenger: BC’s Stalwart Auditor General Pushed Out

Politics, Western Canada
Share

I never understood why then-Premier Gordon Campbell hired John Doyle as BC’s Auditor General in 2007. Was it for show? Was he under the illusion Doyle could be controlled? A deputy A G in Australia with a reputation as a thorough, tough defender of the public interest, Doyle seemed like a poor fit for an administration built on secrets and shady accounting practices – as he would soon discover.

Doyle’s imminent departure, after a special legislative committee decided recently not to renew his six-year contract, is less surprising, but comes a great disappointment, nonetheless.

Throughout his time serving the province, John Doyle has been a bloodhound hot on the trail of myriad multi-billion dollar scandals emanating from behind the closed doors of the Campbell-Clark government. From failed forestry policies and bogus accounting at BC Hydro, to uncovering runaway MLA expenses and tens of billions of dollars of hidden taxpayer liabilities, Mr. Doyle has had the public’s back from day one.

From his very first report – a scathing indictment of Liberal-led changes to tree farm licence regulations which drew a bizarre, foaming-at-the-mouth response from Minister Pat Bell, Doyle hasn’t been afraid to plant his shovel in the dunghill of BC Liberal policies.

Doyle took aim at the government’s forestry policy again in 2012, finding that its incompetent timber supply management over the past decade has severely undermined the future of BC’s forestry industry. “The audit found that the ministry has not clearly defined its timber objectives and, as a result, cannot ensure that its management practices are effective,” a statement from Doyle’s office noted. “Furthermore, existing management practices are insufficient to offset a trend toward future forests having a lower timber supply and less species diversity in some areas.” And that was putting it politely.

Doyle’s most potentially explosive project is the ongoing investigation into the secretive decision by the Liberals to break with government policy and pay the $6 million legal bills of of Dave Basi and Bobby Virk, following their guilty pleas in connection with the BC Rail trial.

Among all of Mr. Doyle’s impressive oeuvre, we at the Common Sense Canadian have been most intrigued by his investigations into BC Hydro, secretive private power contracts, and a massive slush fund of hidden taxpayer obligations in the form of public-private-partnership (P3) contracts related to new infrastructure (boondoggles like the ice block-dropping Port Mann Bridge).

As Doyle discovered, by 2011, the Liberals had stashed over $80 Billion in taxpayer commitments above and beyond the provincial debt (which they’ve also lifted by some $20 Billion during their tenure), by classifying them as contractual obligations instead of conventional debt. That figure includes some$53 Billion in reckless, overpriced, unnecessary, completely secret private power contracts. To the taxpayer concerned about the health of province’s finances, it makes little difference what you label it. The plain fact is the BC Liberal government has jacked up your long-term liabilities by something like$100 Billion in just a decade. All while crowing about their fiscal reliability and economic prowess.

It is also worth noting that the Liberals have never once received a passing grade from Doyle’s office on their annual financial report.

The NDP expressed outrage at Doyle’s ouster, with Caucus Chair Shane Simpson saying on the announcement, “I think it’s petty and it’s vindictive and I think it reflects a government that doesn’t have confidence in its own leadership style and its own management.” I wonder, though, if privately they too aren’t breathing a sigh of relief, knowing they won’t be under his all-seeing magnifying glass when they take the reins in Victoria this May.

Interestingly, Doyle is not the only public watchdog in this country hired by tight-lipped leaders, only to become the bane of their existence. Other examples include Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and Canadian Auditors General Sheila Fraser and her replacement Michael Ferguson, who together shot down Stephen Harper’s F-35 program.

Whatever the reason for pushing out such an effective civil servant (we’ll never know because the decision was made in secret, naturally!) Doyle’s departure is a tremendous loss for the BC taxpayer and should cause every citizen to question this government’s motives as we head into a provincial election.

John Doyle did his level best to lift the veil on the most secretive administration in this province’s history. Now, just imagine how they’d behave without him peering over their shoulder.

Share
Stephen Harper stopped short of ratifying the Canada-China FIPA trade deal in 2012 under enormous public pressure. What will 2013 hold for FIPA and foreign ownership of Canadian energy companies?

2012: The Year of Energy Politics

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

CBC’s Power and Politics has chosen “energy politics” as the top Canadian news story for 2012 and we at the Common Sense Canadian couldn’t agree more.

Energy is the current which runs through a diverse array of issues presently reshaping our country – from omnibus budget bills that have slashed environmental regulations, to foreign trade deals, changes to our labour rules and, perhaps most significantly, the growing mobilization of First Nations, supported by non-aboriginal Canadians, to oppose many of these initiatives.

2012 was a year that began with Conservative Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver dismissing opponents of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines as “radicals” and ends with the Idle No More rallies sweeping the nation – with support coming in from as far away as Buckingham Palace (or just outside its gates, anyway).

It was a year when two very different visions for the future of Canada and its place in the world collided headlong with each other. One seeking to curb the Tar Sands and new arteries essential to its growth, the other striving to make Canada into a new Saudi Arabia – provider of oil, gas and coal to emerging Asian markets.

Each policy piece from the Harper Government was part of a bigger puzzle, designed to bring its new vision to fruition.

There was the first omnibus budget bill, C-38, which gutted the Fisheries Act, watered down environmental assessment processes and slashed ministry staff in monitoring and regulation. The Common Sense Canadian published retired senior DFO scientist and manager Otto Langer’s first warning of these intended changes to the Fisheries Act, which unleashed a media firestorm and spate of denials from senior Harperites.

We also published the sad farewell letter from one of the world’s top marine pollution experts, Dr. Peter Ross, who lost his job when the Harper Government essentially canned our entire ocean monitoring program. Even one of the world’s top monitoring stations for climate change and arctic ice melt, PEARL, could not escape this government’s ax (for a savings of a whopping million and a half a year).

Clearly, these changes grew out of and helped to further a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to climate science that is critical to the Harper Government’s hydrocarbon expansion agenda – which also demanded the smoothing of those pesky regulatory hurdles for resource project development.

But one of the Harper Government’s pet projects, the Northern Gateway pipeline, made defending its agenda more challenging, with an unrivaled string of public embarrassments. There was the damning US report on the company’s 2010 disaster in Michigan, then more spills in Canada, a badly bungled PR campaign, the infamous “missing islands”, and repeated blunders at the National Energy Board hearings into its proposal.

Yet, even with these public blemishes on the star of its new energy vision and with mounting evidence of catastrophic, fossil fuel-driven climate change, the Harper Government’s attitude remained unchanged, especially on the international stage. In 2012, we became the first country to formally pull out of the Kyoto Protocol (not that we ever took our commitments serious in the first place). At the same time, Canada was caught by the Guardian, through a leaked memo, working to block a resolution to end to public subsidies for fossil fuels at the Rio+20 summit.

Back in Ottawa, the latest omnibus budget, C-45, picked up where its predecessor left off, slashing the age-old Navigable Waters Protection Act – one of the main beefs of the Idle No More movement.

Provincially, energy politics have dominated the agenda too – from the well-publicized spat between BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford over revenue sharing from the proposed Enbridge pipeline, to Redford’s new alliance with Quebec Premier Pauline Marois over alternate plans to move bitumen East.

The media and public discourse in BC was particularly infused with with energy – beginning with the NDP and Liberals jostling for positioning on Enbridge, to the emergence of KinderMorgan’s proposed pipeline and tanker expansion for Vancouver as a major urban issue in the lead-up to next May’s election. Add to that natural gas fracking, proposed pipelines and the plan to build multiple Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals on the coast – all of which are increasingly on the media and public’s radar and sure to be election topics. The movement against the proposed Site C Dam, which would power gas and mining operations, is building momentum too.

The NDP has been all over the map on these issues, initially getting behind fracking, new pipelines and LNG plants with few reservations, then, recently, showing signs of feeling some of the public pressure building around these issues. This was evidenced by an op-ed in the Georgia Straight, co-penned by Energy Critic John Horgan and Environment Critic Rob Flemming, promising “a broad public review of fracking” and “immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources”.

The party appears caught between the growing concerns about fracking and LNG and a desire not to appear to be too “anti-business” or ignore an opportunity to reboot the BC industry and close the budget gap with increased royalties and related revenues. It will be very interesting to see where the NDP goes on this file in 2013.

Christy Clark, for her part, has left no doubt about her bullish outlook for natural gas and LNG, comparing BC’s potential with this resource to Alberta’s Tar Sands. Some of the nation’s top independent energy experts have poked big holes in Clark’s plan, though, suggesting that her numbers simply don’t add up.

Federally, the NDP’s selection of Thomas Mulcair shook up the political scene and energy debate. Unlike Harper’s former Liberal Opposition challengers, Mulcair seemed to have a firm grasp of energy and economic issues and was prepared to take on Harper on topics others would shy away from.

Take Mulcair’s rendering of the “Dutch Disease” into a Canadian household term. The concept, supported by the OECD and other highly reputable economic institutions and economists, holds that the downside of a petro-state economy is artificial currency inflation, which leads to the hollowing of a nation’s manufacturing sector. New jobs in Fort MacMurray mean layoffs in Hamilton. The fact Mulcair was able to get the traction he did with this discussion and to lodge it – even a little – in the national consciousness is a testament to his oratory skills, political sensibilities, and willingness to take some risks to differentiate himself from Harper. Mulcair also helped to re-frame pipeline politics, opposing Enbridge but getting behind the notion of shipping bitumen East (the source of another emerging public energy debate).

But the reach of energy politics extended far beyond provincial and national borders this year, as the Harper Government negotiated a new trade deal with China, ostensibly to stimulate investment in Canadian energy resources. The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPA) came under great scrutiny – particularly in these pages – for eroding Canadian sovereignty and enshrining much diminished environmental protections as the law of the land for years to come.

Harper seemed caught off guard by the backlash generated by this deal and several concurrent foreign buyouts of Canadian energy companies – which seemed to be the very purpose of FIPA. When he finally approved the $15 Billion purchase of Nexen by Chninese state-owned CNOOC and Canadian gas company Progress Energy by Malaysian giant Petronas, it was late on a Friday afternoon, to avoid the media glare that had been focused on these deals. He promised then, surprisingly, that this marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one” with regards to such foreign buyouts of Canadian energy assets (PS we aren’t buying that line here).

Compounding the public and media pressure around FIPA and these energy company buyouts was the controversy that erupted from a coal mine in northeast BC. When it emerged the company, HD Mining, was hiring all imported Chinese workers for its Murray River mine, a heated back-and-forth ensued between the United Steelworkers’ Union and a Chinese worker who has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging the union is “creating contempt for Chinese people”.

In the midst of this fracas, an embarrassed Immigration Minister Jason Kenney promised to review the labour rules that allowed this situation to happen. And yet, it was Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, with Kenney’s support,who just recently made the changes to the Canadian labour regulations that enable companies to hire foreign temporary workers for lower wages than they would pay Canadians.

The Harper Government’s labour policy seems designed precisely to encourage situations like the one at Murray River, directly undermining the government’s “jobs” rhetoric around resource development.

Likely as a result of all this scrutiny, Harper has delayed on ratifying the Chinese FIPA. A campaign led by social media-driven public advocacy groups Leadnow.ca and Sumofus.org generated over 80,000 petition signatures and thousands of letters and submissions to government officials protesting the proposed FIPA.

But the biggest story in 2012 has been the unprecedented coming together of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians to jointly confront these hydrocarbon projects and the Harper Government’s vision for Canada’s future. Even in the waning days of 2012, we saw another victory by First Nations and environmentalists working together to secure a long-term ban on coal bed methane fracking in the Sacred Headwaters. That the Clark Government saw this as politically expedient – or necessary – is interesting in and of itself.

It remains to be seen where the Idle No More movement goes from here. Will its intensity subside in the new year like the Occupy Movement of last year, or will it be forged into a formidable political force, crystallizing the burgeoning sense of discontent amongst many Canadians with the direction our political leaders are taking us?

2013 holds the answers to many other burning energy questions, like how the Enbridge pipeline hearings will conclude or when KinderMorgan will formally file its plans. Will this American company’s experience be smoother than that of Enbridge, or will an unprecedented urban environmental movement rise up to block its path? What role will natural gas will play in BC’s provincial election? Will this new energy alliance between Alberta and Quebec and the vision to pipe the Tar Sands East pan out? Perhaps most interesting, will Harper ratify or abandon FIPA and will he keep his word on nixing future foreign buyouts of Canadian energy assets?

Stay tuned to the Common Sense Canadian in the New Year to find out. Or maybe the evening of December 31st. Knowing the Harper Government, that’s when all the really important changes to our national fabric will be announced.

Share

Despite PM’s Assurances, Floodgates Open to Chinese Govt as Encana, PetroChina Partner

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

“For the right price, anything is for sale” -Anthony Lambert, President and CEO of a Canadian arm of Chinese state-owned Sinopec, known as Sinopec Daylight Energy

Canadians are seeing red this week after a series of announcements reinforce concerns about the loss of Canadian resources and sovereignty.

The focus has been the Alberta Tar Sands, but natural gas plays are also in the mix. Four days after Stephen Harper boldly stated that the CNOOC/Nexen and Petronas/Progress takeovers marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one,” one of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies, Encana, announced a joint venture in a 4-plus billion dollar gas play in which PetroChina will have a 49.9 percent stake. A “minority” position such as this is seemingly an end-run on the “new,” yet unexplained criteria dictating the level of Chinese/foreign investment the Harper government would support.

CNOOC’s Nexen bid was a full takeover of a Canadian-based company with international holdings, however its mainstay is the Alberta oil patch and part of that takeover also includes a percentage of Syncrude. These companies have enjoyed years of Canadian taxpayer subsidies and support to make them profitable. The benefits of that multibillion dollar effort will now accrue to a Chinese “SOE”, or State Owned Enterprise, turning Canada into what the Alberta Federation of Labour’s recent detailed report describes as “China’s Gas Tank”.

Those supportive of foreign SOE investment in Canadian resource plays dismiss the concerns raised as unwarranted paranoia. A sort of “Reds under the bed” fear being mocked by folks like Bob Rae, outgoing liberal leader and supporter of Chinese investment. But this dismissive attitude shared by the supporters of such investment neglects the heart of the matter.

Joseph Stalin once said, “When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use,” which is in keeping with the Sinopec President’s view that “anything is for sale at the right price.” This point is pivotal. Chinese investment by SOE’s seems counter-intuitive to a “free enterprise” approach – a central plank in the ideologically driven agenda of Stephen Harper. So why does he abandon such principles along with his base and run far from the centre over to what many view as the extreme left?

It is largely due to the fact that SOEs have deep pockets and are paying real, serious, above-market premiums to snatch up Canadian oil and gas assets, which is enriching longstanding players in the patch and their investors. And it is true that they are doing so because there is profit to be made, and not simply in owning Canadian resources raw and sending them home to China.

But it’s really about the age-old geopolitical game of control over the world’s resources, exploiting them elsewhere while leaving one’s own in the ground, as United States has historically done (however, now you will note that they too are falling prey to exploitation and export of their “Homeland” resources.) All of which will fuel the growth of China’s economy into what people are proclaiming will be the world’s largest economy in as soon as a decade or two.

China has a stake in many nations around the globe and the forces that historically “nation build” are at work once again in boosting China to the forefront of the world, unfortunately their model has even less trickle down to the Chinese people, as they often live in squalor and cities that could house millions remain empty.

To accommodate this agenda the Harper government has created a very attractive investment “climate” in the Tar Sands. A much-reduced royalty rate, heavy subsidies, a gutted environmental regime, paralyzed environmental assessment processes. All this while accruing decision making to the top. Cabinet (read Chairman Harper) will decide cross-border pipelines, terms of trade and investment deals, criteria for foreign investment, and he has taken measures to lock in the new legislative framework dictating resource development and exploitation for decades to come.

During the minority reign of the Harper administration, he oversaw the single largest divestiture of a “public asset” in our nation’s history when he constructed the offloading and privatization of Petro Canada. The result was a gift to industry, a huge loss to Canadian taxpayers and it closed the public window we had on this industry from well to pump. Which is why Harper was so precise with his language when he approved the CNOOC/Nexen and Petronas/Progress takeovers.

Indeed, the first thing out of his mouth at the press conference announcing the approvals was, “To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments, only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead.” However that is precisely what is occurring, no matter how you slice it.

But Harper ignores this reality and doubles down on his bold misrepresentation of the facts, “It is not an outcome any responsible government of Canada could ever allow to happen. We certainly will not.”  And they should not, Harper realizes its not what Canadians want, which is why he takes to the mike and says these things. So why does he do the exact opposite?

Foreign investment is already a serious issue in the oil and gas industry in Canada. Forest Ethics recently released a brief explaining how Canada’s major oil and gas players are on average 71% “foreign owned.”  In fact, the major players in the patch are almost entirely foreign owned; it is only the Canadian-based companies that bring that percentage down from fully foreign ownership. But even those Canadian-based companies are owned by foreign interests in the majority. All of this equals an exodus of cash from the country, only outdone by the flow of oil, gas and other raw resources.

If Canadian companies cannot find the money to invest in the oil and gas patch, despite outgoing Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney’s criticism that corporate Canada is sitting on over 600 billion dollars of “dead money” and Canadian “SOEs” needed to be sliced, diced, demonized and sold off, why are Chinese SOEs all the rage?

Jim Stanford, a highly respected, independent-minded Canadian economist, suggests the notion that Canada cannot capitalize its own resources and must therefore rely on foreign investment is balderdash. Moreover, the Conservatives still boast that Canada and its banking industry are a pillar of stability in a sea of insecurity and crashing economies. All of which runs counter to the oft-repeated cliché that “we need” this foreign investment, and is instead looking much like a foreign takeover of not only our resources but our sovereignty.

This is where the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPA) comes in. This government continues to claim that somehow FIPA is good for Canadian investment in China, yet there is no evidence of that. Preeminent Canadian economist Diane Francis, a polar opposite to Jim Stanford, would probably agree with him on this one, as she has suggested the FIPA should be ripped up. Meanwhile, even Canada-US free trade architect Brian Mulroney states that we are still at least a decade away from free trade with China.

So why FIPA? Why now? In corporate parlance this amounts to a “Friendly Takeover”, as both entities agree there are “synergies” with the syncrude and are supportive of the entire notion, therefore it’s not a hostile takeover.

In promoting this deal, the Harperites will tell you that we have dozens of other FIPAs and this one is simply just another one. However that too is very misleading. The others are largely with countries where Canadian-based companies, typically mining companies, are operating.

Once again, these companies maybe Canadian-based, but they are largely foreign-owned, and they base themselves in Canada because our legislative environment is accommodating to their agenda. Canada is to mining what Switzerland is to banking and the FIPAs we negotiated are in most cases as draconian for the less-developed nations as the Chinese FIPA is for us.

These FIPAs guarantee the exploitation of mineral rights in less developed countries, for Canadian-based mining companies, and ensure the governments are removed from the equation, unable to protect the environment or increase royalty rates. In fact, the governments are reduced to cheerleaders on the “promotion” side of these agreements. Any move to regain sovereignty, charge respectable royalties, protect the environment or impose any restrictions on unbridled exploitation is met with severe financial penalties, meted out by a new corporate judiciary established by these agreements, which works in secret and is entirely profit-motivated.

This is exactly what is happening to Canada with the Chinese FIPA.

However, a huge push back has occurred and Harper seems frozen in his tracks on this one.

After having restructured the very fabric of the nation with two omnibus bills – the largest we have ever seen – he has still not ratified the agreement. Ironically, Omnibus bills have been used very sparingly in history. In 1971 Liberals used the practice to establish the “Department of the Environment,” and then again in 1982 to establish Trudeau’s infamous “National Energy Program.” The Conservatives fought it then and had the bill divided into eight different sections. On the other hand, Conservative governments have used the practice more. They used it once to enact NAFTA, and now twice since Harper obtained his majority – for the opposite purpose of omnibus bills of old, which established our internationally-renowned environmental practices and the nation-building, sovereignty-securing laws of Trudeau’s NEP.

As we pointed out in painstaking detail here at the Common Sense Canadian, the recent Omnibus bills run contrary to the FIPA treaty process and, in our opinion, render it null and void. This could be at the very heart of the delays we are now experiencing. There were many petitions and expressions of outrage, however, the argument we forwarded was indisputable and has put the Harper Cabinet in a box. And now we have an opportunity to follow up and here is why.

If FIPA is ratified, it will mark the end of Canadian sovereignty in the oil and gas patch. It will also ensure that China becomes the major driver of activity in both oil and gas. The terms are so favourable for “Chinese investment” that it will force partnering with them on resource plays as evidenced in the recent PetroChina/Encana joint venture announcement. The FIPA offers such attractive terms that partnering with any other private companies or SOEs would put one at a disadvantage. This essentially makes the draconian FIPA terms the new de facto law of the land and not simply a bilateral investment agreement. Can you imagine the Harper government or any other government making laws – or restoring those recently stripped away – which apply to everyone but Chinese companies?

I raised these points and many others in my submission to the FIPA environmental assessment process and we encouraged you to do the same. The campaign was picked up by savvy internet politicos who run Leadnow and similar organizations. The end result was thousands of submissions to various levels of government on this issue, on top of the 100 thousand-plus petition signatures these groups garnered against FIPA. Others chimed in as well, and the result so far has been positive.

However there is still an opportunity to communicate once again our adamant disapproval of the FIPA agreement. It is important we do so in order to send a message loud and clear that we do not approve locking in subsidies, much-reduced royalty rates, much-diminished environmental processes and reduced protection for over thirty years – an eternity in terms of the timeline required to liquidate our oil and gas  resources.

It may have made sense in the beginning to give the resource away and subsidize its growth, in an effort to get a capital-intensive exercise on a solid economic footing, but at a time where balanced budgets elude us, debt is racking up at any amazing pace and our standard of living is eroding, we cannot afford to allow these conditions to persist so long into the future. It will spell our demise.

So take the time and visit this link related to the Chinese FIPA and share these concerns with them. At this point the Minister of Industry has stated uncertainty around the ratification of FIPA, therefore we need to continue to apply pressure in order to at the very least delay, if not entirely avoid, ratification of this treaty. Our future and our kids depend on it.

You can visit this link and copy and paste the letter there, as it is still relevant and they invite more comments to that final FIPA Environmental Assessment, despite the closing of the public window for submissions.

Comments on this report may be sent by email, mail or fax to:

Environmental Assessments of Trade Agreements
Trade Agreements and NAFTA Secretariat
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2
Fax: (613) 992-9392
E-mail: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

Share

NDP Op-ed: Party Committed to Review of Fracking, Tougher Regulations

Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Politics, Water and Hydrocarbons, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this op-ed by the BC NDP’s Energy Critic John Horgan and Environment Critic Rob Flemming, promising a tougher stance on natural gas fracking and related water issues. (Dec 13, 2012)

British Columbia needs to have a strong environmental lens guiding the development of our energy resources.  As we transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy, we must recognize the need for the responsible development of existing energy sources. 

 

While British Columbia has a well-established natural gas industry and an existing network of natural gas pipelines, we must approach further expansion with care.

New Democrats have met with First Nations, local governments, and residents throughout northeast B.C. While there are questions and concerns about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, there is also much agreement that extraction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects can be done with greater consideration for environmental protection.

That’s why Adrian Dix and B.C.’s New Democrats have put forward a plan that we believe will ensure long-term sustainability and environmental stewardship, greater public accountability, and best practices in the industry, particularly when it comes to fracking.

The first point of our plan would be to appoint an expert panel to conduct a broad public review of fracking, including public hearings and consultations with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups, and citizens. The panel will ensure British Columbians get B.C.-specific information they can trust.

Second, we would make immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources, including consolidating authority for water licensing within one public body; improving water mapping, monitoring and public reporting; and reviewing current water pricing practices.

Many British Columbians are raising valid questions and concerns about water use and the impacts of fracking. Our call for a review of water management stands in stark contrast to the B.C. Liberal government, which has largely failed to put the necessary protections in place.

The B.C. Liberal government has dragged its feet on introducing the Water Sustainability Act which promised to “respond to current and future pressures on water, and position B.C. as a leader in water stewardship.” While draft legislation was promised years ago, it likely won’t see the light of day before the end of the Liberals’ term in office.

A number of B.C. First Nations are in favour of supporting LNG development under the right circumstances. For example, while the Fort Nelson First Nation has criticized the Liberal government for “irresponsible, unsustainable water use” in the shale gas industry, they acknowledge the economic benefits of the natural gas industry and believe “that shale gas development can occur without full-scale damage to our rivers, lakes, and streams”.

Our plan would also include extending funding for the Farmers’ Advocate office to ensure landowners in the natural gas fields have the credible, independent support they need to deal with the gas industry.

And finally, we must find ways to align expansion in gas development and greenhouse gas emissions with the targets set out in the province’s Climate Action Plan. The Liberals have largely failed to take responsibility on this front, opting instead to change the definition of what constitutes “clean” energy rather than tackle the tough issues.

New Democrats can support LNG exports while opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline because LNG is a much safer alternative to oil. While any incident would be a major concern, the safety record of gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and LNG tankers shows there have been very few leaks. And unlike raw bitumen, which would cause a devastating environmental catastrophe in the case of a major spill off B.C.’s north coast, liquefied natural gas would evaporate and dissipate.

A New Democrat government would approach the development of safer, cleaner energy sources in an environmentally-responsible way. By subjecting each project to a rigorous environmental assessment and having the proper protections in place, we would make certain the best interests of our province are represented. This will enhance our economic development and indigenous peoples’ self-determination, and create a sustainable environment for the future.

Read original post: http://www.straight.com/news/rob-fleming-and-john-horgan-fracking

Share