Category Archives: Politics

NDP Leader Mulcair Sounding Like Progressive Conservatives on Oil Policy

July 19, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, Oil and gas, Politics, Thomas MulcairCommon Sense Canadian

Read this editorial by Don Braid in the Calgary Herald remarking on the similarities between Federal NDP and Official Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair’s position Canadian oil policy and more traditional Progressive Conservatives like former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed. (July 13, 2012)

CALGARY — Watching NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair at work here in Stampede city, you might expect a few similar politicians to spring to mind. (Maybe Lenin? Strictly for the beard, of course, not the ideology.)

The ones who occur to me most readily, though, are Alberta conservatives, because they’ve often sounded so much like the federal NDP leader when he talks about the energy industry.

Peter Lougheed, for instance.

Only last fall the revered ex-premier came out against the Keystone XL Pipeline, saying it would ship jobs out of Alberta.

“We should be refining the bitumen in Alberta and we should make it public policy in the province,” Lougheed said. “That would be a better thing to do than merely send the raw bitumen down the pipeline and they refine it in Texas. That means thousands of new jobs in Texas.”

Mulcair made much the same pitch Thursday, but for the whole country, not just Alberta.

He said he wants more refineries built to create jobs. He favours reversing pipelines to ship oil eastward. He opposed closing a Shell refinery in Montreal because he wants western oil refined there.

Lougheed would surely blow his venerated stack if I push this parallel too far; and to be sure, there are differences.

Lougheed always opposed Ottawa’s efforts to force Alberta to “ship jobs down the pipeline to Sarnia.”

In the days before free trade, the debate over jobs and oil revenues was purely internal. That has faded with new markets and the immense revenues they generate.

But today Thomas Mulcair and Peter Lougheed clearly agree on the folly of sending vast quantities of oil abroad.

Next, Mulcair sounded very much like former Premier Ed Stelmach.

One of Ed’s favourite lines was: “I’ve always said shipping raw bitumen out of our province is comparable to selling the topsoil on a farm.”

Stelmach created the Bitumen Royalty in Kind program, which allows energy companies to pay their royalties to government in black goo rather than cash. Ultimately, the government’s bitumen is used as feedstock to supply new upgraders on favourable terms.

It was a good idea that has not yet been a grand success.

Dix Can Reclaim Control Over Fish, Pipelines and Tankers from Harper

July 16, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaAdrian Dix, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsRafe Mair

Dear Adrian Dix,

You and your party have taken a strong stand against the Enbridge Pipeline and tanker issues, for which I applaud you. I think you should broaden this policy, but first some background.

Stephen Hume has a fascinating article in the Saturday July 14 Vancouver Sun in which he quotes a man from Kitimat who, with the assistance of a man with mathematical training, vetted by a Mathematics professor at Thompson Rivers University, assessed the risk of spills, ruptures, etc. from the Enbridge Pipeline and tankers out of Kitimat, using Enbridge’s own figures. The results are scary, to say the least. By all means, read the article, but the bottom line is that over 50 years there is an 87% chance of a major spill on land or sea.

Here, Mr. Dix, are two other major factors – we know that getting any sort of cleanup on land is virtually non-existent due to the terrain and all but impossible at sea, AND, as Kalamazoo teaches us, there’s very little that can be done to clean up these spills. Very quickly after a spill on water, the bitumen is freed from the condensate which permits it to be piped, and it sinks like a rock.

There is one other new factor the BC government must face – almost nil protection of fish and their habitat by The Department of Fisheries and Oceans thanks to Bill C-38.

We have a jurisdictional clash here, for under The Constitution Act, federal power over fisheries is paramount but the Provinces have control over “Property and Civil Rights”.

Now we get into sticky ground here, but there’s no question in my mind that the Province can and should legislate so as to protect all wildlife, which is its clear right. Hunting laws are provincial as are fishing laws over those which do not go to sea. The dangerous ground is that if the “pith and substance” of your laws was to deal in fisheries over which Ottawa has jurisdiction it might be struck down by the courts.

There is absolutely no need to be concerned about that if you proceed properly.

Dealing with the pipeline, there is an unquestionable provincial right to protect all fauna and flora. Properly done, this would not be a ruse or look like a ruse to trample on the Federal jurisdiction over fisheries but a legitimate effort to protect our trees and our wildlife. Moreover, how could the feds be heard to complain that the matters under their jurisdiction are being protected?

The same argument applies to the coast, where birds and bears depend upon a pristine climate within which to live and eat.

Now, what I suggest Mr Dix, is that your legal beagles go to work and prepare draft legislation which could be tabled as a private member’s bill at the next sitting of the legislature – assuming there is one – and made public in the meantime. From a strictly political point of view, I can think of nothing more useful than having the Feds challenge the constitutionality of your position.

You should go one step further – return to the local governments their power to permit development in their bailiwicks as they had before the Campbell/Clark government took it away. They did that for the Ashlu private power plant. We know from the result of that project that the fish died in ponds because too much water was sucked out of the river. The Ashlu River would still be free of impediments to fish had the Squamish-Lilloett Regional District’s jurisdiction been honoured.

You have spoken loud and clear Mr, Dix – it’s time to put it in writing.

Another Open Letter to MP John Weston on Tankers, Salmon – from his Constituent, Rafe Mair

July 13, 2012Canada, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, Salmon, Stephen HarperRafe Mair

John,

When we met at the meeting at the North Vancouver church last night, on pipelines and tankers, you mentioned that we have known one another for some years ,as we indeed have. Far from having any dislike of you, my feelings are quite the opposite. I often remember the tour you took me on of Boston when I came to address the Harvard Canadian Club, of which you were a member.

I’m going to get right down to cases. You have disappointed me in that I thought that you might just buck the system and stand up for your province but you have manifestly failed.

You said last night that you voted for Bill C-38 because it would enhance “process” around fish habitat. That was a lie, John, and I’m surprised that a good Christian would make such an egregiously false statement. You voted for C-38 because you had to – just as one of your colleagues did after expressing some public concerns. The truth of the matter is this was the Budget and you had no choice. What you could have done and should have done, seeing you are a “process” person, about which more in a moment, is support those MPs irate that the budget process should be abused to contain substantive policy changes (fish habitat, for example) in it.

Let’s get down to what you said last night. I had accused you of knowing nothing about the environmental catastrophe of pipelines and tankers and while I applaud your honesty am stunned to hear a BC MP admit he knew bugger-all about the subject matter of the controversy but relied upon “the process” to see that environmental concerns are addressed.

Your big word was “process” – a nice, lawyerly approach except you miss the entire point, and please pay attention: These hearings, be they over pipelines, tanker traffic, or so-called “run-of-river” projects do not address whether or not the project should be done in the first place.

These are, to all intents and purposes, done deals. While the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board, and is to assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act, you know and I know that your government is going ahead with the Gateway project, irrespective of the Panel’s findings.

This isn’t so you say? The government has an open mind on the matter?

Don’t you know what your Natural Resources minister has said ad nauseum?

Watch and read his comments such as, “Environmental and other ‘radical groups’ are trying to block trade and undermine Canada’s economy, according to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who has also stated, “Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade.”

Prime Minister Harper said in a Q & A, “I think we’ll see significant American interests trying to line up against the Northern Gateway project, precisely because it’s not in the interests of the United States. It’s in the interests of Canada…they’ll funnel money through environmental groups and others in order to try to slow it down but, as I say, we’ll make sure that the best interests of Canada are protected.”

John, read what your leaders have said…take the time I did on the Internet and you will find that to your Prime Minister and the Natural Resources Minister, the Gateway is a done deal and the hearings simply provide a way for environmental groups to delay.

In fact, Oliver deals extensively with timelines and the need to get this project running “expeditiously”.

I have been to enough of government sponsored “hearings” to know that they are a sham. As I’ve said, “Id rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than attend another.”

Surely, John, prisoner of the system though you might be, you must admit that your government is bent on approving Gateway and in fact your leaders admit it. That being so, John, how can you baldly state that there is “process” of any meaning here?

There are some issues that go straight to the heart our social community and how we want to live.

One such issue, 20 years ago, was the Charlottetown Accord which would have dramatically altered the Canadian system of governance. To the people of British Columbia, the pipelines and tanker traffic similarly go to the very root of what we believe in and how we want to live. We’re dealing with the very soul of BC and you would have us believe that we are getting a process within which we can make our feelings known in a meaningful way?

You know that Gateway is a done deal as far as your government is concerned and that the hearings are not designed to discover what the people want to see happen to our province. The plain truth is that no matter what the Panel recommends, your government will approve the projects.

On the questions about the Fisheries Act, to say this will enhance “process” is rather like, “In order to save the village it was necessary to destroy it.”

For habitat to be protected, development must be prohibited, for the moment you open it to “process”, you condemn it to destruction. I tried to make you and others understand that some things by their nature cannot be mediated, nor can impacts be “mitigated”, an awful weasel word. The example the minister gave of a carp pond was puerile and dangerous. It’s not carp ponds you’ve exposed to the front-end loader but the BC salmon about which you know nothing. How can you take away protection from development without knowing what the hell you’re doing?

The DFO was politicized back in the 1980s by Tom Siddon in the federal government’s giveaway to Alcan and its Kemano Completion Project. This is a very sad chapter and you should know that the Mulroney government suppressed a devastating report by DFO scientists which condemned the KCP in no uncertain terms. The scientists (dubbed the “dissident” scientists by Alcan, a sobriquet they bore with honour) were given early retirement, transferred or refused promotion they were rightly expecting). That 1984 Report was released in 1992 by me after I received it in a brown envelope. If you want the inside story on that I will introduce you to Dr. Gordon Hartman, one of those dissident scientists.

The person to talk to about the gutting of the enforcement arm of DFO is Otto Langer, an ex-DFO man to whom I would be happy to introduce you.

John, you are an embodiment of almost child-like naiveté who has been captivated by the elected dictator system we find ourselves in. You have allowed yourself to self-hypnotize into believing untruths because you must – then perpetuating dangerous falsehoods. It’s rather like the Stockholm Syndrome, where you’ve fallen in love with your captors.

I think it was Senator Daniel Moynihan who said, “You’re entitled to make up your own mind but not your own facts.”

Sincerely,

Rafe

Enbridge ‘Jobs’ Argument Rings Hollow as US Vets Recruited to Work in Canadian Oil Industry

July 9, 2012Canada, Economics, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, Stephen HarperDamien Gillis

The argument we hear most frequently from the Harper Government in favour of bulldozing through the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines is the major job benefits the project would carry for Canadians. But recent talk of importing foreign workers from the United States and China make a mockery of that boast.

The latest evidence to this effect – a job posting on the American website run by Veterans of Foreign Wars, which helps vets find employment – bears some claims that are so absurd as to beg the question whether it’s a hoax. Some of the figures cited are highly suspect; nevertheless, on the whole, it provides telling window into an alternative narrative emerging around the Tar Sands pipelines issue. The posting reads:

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is proud to announce that its partly owned veterans jobs board has secured an exclusive employment initiative with Alberta, Canada, that could see thousands of U.S. veterans heading north to work on their oil pipeline.

“This is a great opportunity for veterans, transitioning military, National Guard and reservists, and their family members,” said Ted Daywalt, founder and CEO of VetJobs (www.vetjobs.com), a recognized industry leader in helping veterans find work.

“Though America’s Keystone Pipeline is delayed, the Canadians are moving forward on their side of the border and have an immediate need for tens of thousands of workers,” said Daywalt, whose website averages more than 55,000 daily job postings by employers strictly interested in hiring veterans. He said the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation anticipates a shortage of 114,000 workers in the Alberta area, and they want to hire American veterans to fill that shortage.

According to the development corporation, the positions being offered are long term, with many paying as much as 30 percent more than similar industry positions in the United States. Some positions will require a move to Canada, but many others will allow veterans to commute — working several weeks in Canada, then one week back home. (emphasis added)

The posting came my way via a BC-based environmental discussion listserv, Land Watch, and has provoked some interesting questions.

For starters – beyond the matter-of-fact assertion that “the Canadians are moving forward on their side of the border” with our highly controversial proposed pipeline projects – there’s the eyebrow-raising jobs claim. Creating 114,000 jobs would essentially mean doubling the current employment of the entire Canadian oil and gas sector, and yet the ad only mentions pipeline construction jobs specifically.

Even Enbridge (whose new ad campaign touting myriad economic benefits sputtered recently over a spoof by Province cartoonist Dan Murphy that went viral) and the project’s looniest boosters acknowledge the pipeline would provide a few thousand temporary jobs at best. Once it’s built, BC would see only several dozen permanent jobs. A recent study by the Petroleum Human Resources Council of Canada suggests the workforce of the Alberta Tar Sands – which altogether employs just 20,000 people, constituting 15% of Canada’s total oil and gas jobs – will rise by 73% by 2021, but that pales in comparison with the numbers being thrown around by Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The posting rings true on another front, though – the fact that both BC and Alberta are approaching full employment territory, putting paid to the argument we need new jobs at the expense of our environment. BC and Alberta are both seeing strong job growth today – with unemployment in BC falling by .8% from May to 6.6% in June (though some of BC’s lower unemployment numbers derive from workers heading across the border to Alberta). Alberta lost a handful of jobs in June, but its unemployment rate remains at a paltry 4.6%.

We’re told ad nauseum that we need to accept the certain risk of pipeline leaks and tanker spills because we badly need the jobs that come with these projects, yet the plain fact is we don’t have the workforce to provide tens of thousands of new employees for Tar Sands-related development.

One line in particular stands out in the job ad, namely that “…[the] veterans jobs board has secured an exclusive employment initiative with Alberta, Canada…” Secured? With whom? The Alberta Government? The Government of Canada? Has an American company signed a deal with our government(s) to provide foreign labour to Canada, and if so, why have we heard nothing of it from our elected officials? It could be this is just exaggerated salesmanship on the part of this jobs site, but these are questions that need answering.

Another question the posting raises is why would we pay these workers 30% more in Canada than south of the border? This claim seems to conflict with the other major challenge to the jobs argument – the recent revelation that state-owned energy giant PetroChina wants to build the Enbridge pipeline. The advantage to Enbridge from this proposition is a significant discount on labour, as the Harper Government recently changed our laws to allow companies operating in Canada to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less than the average wage for Canadians. This hardly seems like the policy of a government concerned about creating oil and gas jobs for its citizens.

And again, these direct job-related concerns are on top of the certain environmental and economic calamities of pipeline leaks and tanker spills – which would also be a huge blow to BC’s tourism and natural resource-dependent economy.

Perhaps a larger issue at hand is the matter of Canadian energy security and economic sovereignty.

The picture now emerging is of Chinese and American companies harvesting our bitumen, using Chinese and American labour to extract it, and building the pipelines to transport it back to their own countries to refine it (where the real jobs are), along with the profits from the whole operation. Moreover, we’re only a trade deal away from it being illegal to stop exporting oil to China once we’ve started. We’ve already sacrificed much of our resource and economic sovereignty under NAFTA and the privately controlled American corporation, NERC, which we’ve empowered to regulate our public energy system. Now we’re talking about recently retired American soldiers coming up here to build our oil infrastructure, which is more than a little unsettling.

Finally, in addition to the hollowing out of the “jobs” argument, the macro-economic impacts of expanded pipelines and Tar Sands development have been questioned by the likes of Official Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair, economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Thus, when Stephen Harper and his minions declare the Enbridge pipelines would be good for “the economy”, we must ask the key question: “Whose economy?” US veterans, Chinese migrant workers, China itself and the mostly-foreign shareholders of multinational corporations? Check.

The public of BC and Canada? Not so much.

If I was a BC Tory Under Harper, I’d Resign

July 5, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western CanadaAquaculture, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, KinderMorgan, Oil and gas, Politics, SalmonRafe Mair

I have received a lot of feedback on my recent blog on John Weston, MP.

Let me say that this was directed to Weston because he is my MP and it applies with equal force to all Tory MPs from British Columbia.

I’ve been asked if I would resign were I in John’s position and I say YES. Now, I realize that’s easy to say – he who has not sinned has not been tempted. I have no doubt, however. I sat in a cabinet that had half a dozen ministers who would have resigned under these circumstances. Premier Bill Bennett recognized this and it was taken into his consideration, I’m sure.

Now, under our system – such is the measure of its idiocy – all elected members on the government side must often compromise, otherwise the government couldn’t function. There were occasions where cabinet passed policy that I had spoken out against in the past and I told the press that when cabinet makes a decision all must support it. But these were areas of policy, not matters that go to the root of your commitment to your voters and your constituency. They were not matters of conscience. Any who have sat on the board of, say, a golf club will readily get the distinction between matters of business and matters of conscience. Premier Bill Bennett understood the distinction – Stephen Harper, no doubt also understands but he knows his backbenchers well and knows that there is almost nothing that goes to the conscience of his MPS because they have none.

Let’s be clear what issues we’re talking about here.

The environment of BC as a whole is not merely threatened but is on the brink of disaster from policy decisions already taken by the Harper government. I refer, of course, to its support of the Enbridge pipeline and expansion of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline to Vancouver; its open support of tankers loaded with deadly bitumen from the Tar Sands; its ongoing support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to promote fish farms while their statutory basic raison d’etre is to protect our salmon; and its utter abandonment of protection of fish habitat as demonstrated in its gutting of the DFO in BC.

These, I contend, are not merely matters of policy but go the very root of what British Columbia is and as such simply cannot be supported by any Member of Parliament from our province.

Ask yourself this: if in the past election Tory candidates were asked if they support the above policies, I suggest that not one of them would have answered yes. If they had been and they replied that they were for these policies they would never have been elected and they know that.

I pick on Weston because, as I say, he’s my MP. In fact, the entire BC Conservative caucus ought to resign en masse. That they haven’t and won’t brands them as they are – lickspittles and toadies who put their parliamentary seat before their duty.

My prediction is that Weston will be rewarded with a cabinet seat in the next major shuffle – after all, he has been faithful to Harper and he’s moved his family back to Ottawa, which move could well have come from a nod or a wink from Harper.

After all, if sacrificing your constituency and your province for personal gain is to mean anything, there must be a reward and in my view it will come.

Harper Wasting No Time Slashing DFO Habitat Jobs as Notices go out to Staff

July 3, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, Salmon, Stephen HarperOtto Langer

According to Otto Langer, the former senior DFO scientist and manager who first blew the whistle on Stephen Harper’s plan to gut the Fisheries Act, the job cuts associated with Harper’s program will soon be taking effect in BC. Langer sent out the following warning on June 27.

Today all DFO habitat protection and management staff in Canada are receiving letters that they are now “red-circled” – i.e. they are being affected by Bill C-38 with it’s budget and habitat legislation and program cuts (i.e. DFO downsizing) and many will soon not have a job. Yesterday all staff in the BC-Yukon region were advised of this happening in a telephone call from Pacific Regional Director General Susan Farlinger. Staff were directed to not discuss this with anyone and only DFO Ottawa was allowed to comment on the issue.

132 habitat staff across Canada will be fired (laid off) in the next few months in that many will have to compete for remaining jobs. In the Pacific Region, they now have 92 staff and that is to be reduced to 60 – an approximate 33% cut in staff. Also, all habitat office locations in Pacific Region are to be closed down, with the exception of Whitehorse, Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Vancouver and Nanaimo. That means offices such as those in Mission, Campbell River, Prince George, Nelson, Williams Lake, Smithers, Port Hardy, etc. are to be shut down. If the Enbridge and natural gas pipelines go across northern BC, there will be no habitat staff in Prince George or Smithers, etc. to respond to potential disasters – the closest offices will be Prince Rupert or Kamloops.

The office in Port Hardy has looked after salmon farming issues, which it will be unable to do now.

This puts DFO back where it was in the early 1980s, i.e. 5 offices in BC and even less staff than they had in 1983 with many giant projects such as Enbridge, gas lines, gas liquification plants, New Prosperity Gold Mine, Site C Dam on the Peace River, Panamax tankers of jet fuel up the Fraser River, Roberts Bank Port expansion, etc. now being proposed and pushed along. Never in the past 50 year history of habitat protection have we seen such great cuts in staff the face of upcoming massive industrial development that can and will harm habitat and our fisheries of the future.

Finally, Ottawa has given all DFO habitat staff directions to remove the “Habitat Management Program” title from their organization and from their offices, etc. in that they are now to be called the “Fisheries Protection Program”.

In summary, this puts DFO back to where they were in the late 1970s in terms of habitat staff numbers in the Pacific Region, but with next to no legislation to protect overall habitat and a greatly reduced presence in the field where the habitat damage takes place. Their efforts will of course be distracted over the next year or more in that staff will have to compete for the surviving 60 positions and put their minds to what they can do for a living when laid off and where they move to to get a job to support their families, etc. I am told the already very low morale of the staff was destroyed by Bill C-38 and now it has received its final blow – the willingness and direction to do their jobs can now be measured in negative quantities.

One can now say that the Harper Government has ‘right-sized’ the workload for the reduced number of staff! They will protect less habitat, despite the incredulous claims of DFO Minister Ashfield and many Conservative MPs that DFO will provide the fishery with better, more focused protection. More staff-related budget cuts have been outlined for 2013 and 2014.

All DFO habitat protection offices from Quebec to the BC-Alberta border, i.e. Central and Arctic Region, will also be drastically cut and all offices will be shut down except in Ottawa, Burlington, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife. It is indicated that of 63 DFO offices in Canada with habitat staff (now “fisheries protection” staff), most will be closed and the number of offices having habitat-type program staff will be reduced to 14 for a giant geographic area – i.e. Canada.

Former Conservative Environment Minister Prentice Warns Harper Govt. on Ignoring First Nations

July 3, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, Politics, Stephen HarperCommon Sense Canadian

Read this column from The Georgia Straightby Charlie Smith on former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice’s veiled warning to the Harper Government on the consequences of ignoring First Nations’ opposition to major resource projects. (July 1, 2012)

Sometimes, you stumble across an intriguing article where you least expect to find it.

This weekend as I was perusing a Vancouver Sun special section on energy, I spotted the byline of Jim Prentice. He’s the senior executive vice-president and vice-chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Prentice also happens to be the former Conservative environment minister who announced his resignation from the Stephen Harper government in 2010 because he wanted to spend more time with his family. Coincidentally (or not), this came shortly after he visited Haida Gwaii with environmentalist David Suzuki.

Prentice was a Progressive Conservative before his party was taken over by the more right-wing Canadian Alliance. Its roots were in the old Reform Party of Canada.

Harper, a former policy director of the Reformers, likely went a bit berserk at the sight of his environment minister hobnobbing on The Nature of Things with Suzuki.

Now in his role with the bank, Prentice writes that the objective of developing and exporting Canada’s hydrocarbon deposits is a “defining moment” for the country. He used the same language in a speech last month to the Business Council of B.C.

In the article, Prentice never mentions the proposed Enbridge or Kinder Morgan pipelines by name. However, he acknowledges that “the constitutional and legal issues surrounding west coast energy corridors, terminals and shipping are extraordinarily complex”.

One section of Prentice’s piece is worth repeating verbatim:

To begin, however, the constitutional obligation to consult with first nations is not a corporate obligation. It is the federal government’s responsibility.

Second, the obligation to define an ocean management regime for terminals and shipping on the west coast is not a corporate responsibility. It is the federal government’s responsibility.

Finally, these issues cannot be resolved by regulatory fiat—they require negotiation. The real risk is not regulatory rejection but regulatory approval, undermined by subsequent legal challenges and the absence of ‘social licence’ to operate.

There are billions of dollars at stake for Corporate Canada in the efforts to export raw bitumen through Kitimat and the Port of Vancouver and ship this product via supertankers to Asia.

In the article, Prentice is, in fact, appealing to the Harper government to modify its approach of not seriously negotiating with First Nations.

Hill Times: Harper to “Streamline” Environmental Assessments for $500 Billion of Resource Projects

July 3, 2012Canada, PoliticsPolitics, Stephen HarperCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Ottawa Hill Times on the Harper Government’s intention to fast-track $500 Billion worth of proposed resource development projects by “streamlining” environmental assessments. (July 2, 2012)

As the federal government looks to streamline the approval of an estimated $500-billion worth of investment in 500 mining and energy projects over the next 10 years, industry and environmental groups say they will wait and see how new timelines under Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act, will affect environmental assessments already underway.

Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act, passed its third and final reading in the House of Commons on June 18, days after a 24-four hour marathon vote on 159 bundled opposition amendments.

The Senate passed the controversial 425-page bill, which amends 70 pieces of legislation and contains 150 pages of amendments to environmental laws and the federal environmental assessment process, before adjourning for the summer on Friday, June 29.

Bill C-38 replaces the 1992 Environmental Assessment Act with a 2012 version that imposes a 24-month time limit on joint review panels involving the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board, and/or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and 365 days on standard environmental assessments. The federal Environment minister can extend a review by up to three months, and Cabinet can further extend reviews. The federal minister of Natural Resources has similar authority to extend National Energy Board reviews.

In a May 29 appearance before the Senate Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.) said that the reforms are necessary to streamline the approval of an estimated $500-billion worth of investment in 500 mining and energy projects over the next 10 years. Projects include oil and gas pipelines, mines, hydroelectric dams, oil and gas extraction, and wind and solar farms. Mr. Oliver estimated that the projects would create 700,000 new jobs over the next decade.

“Inefficient regulation leads to unnecessary and unpredictable project delays that can create additional costs for proponents and impede their ability to attract capital and stimulate economic activity,” said Mr. Oliver, who appeared before the committee alongside Environment Minister Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.) and Fisheries and Oceans Minister Keith Ashfield (Fredericton, N.B.). “Both industry and government are in agreement—Canada has suffered from this regulatory malaise for too long.”

Many of the 500 projects touted by the feds are already in some stage of assessment, however, and what the changes in Bill C-38 mean for projects already under review remains unclear. The budget bill contains transitional provisions for projects that are already under review. Under these provisions, the federal Environment minister will have the authority to decide whether assessments underway before Bill C-38 are sufficient, and will impose timelines on these current reviews.

Japan Torpedoes South Atlantic Whale Sancruary on Day 1 of IWC Meeting in Panama

July 3, 2012International, Politics, Species At RiskCommon Sense Canadian

Renowned BC-based whale expert Dr. Paul Spong reports on Day 1 of the 64th annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, taking place this week in Panama.

One of the great things about Panama is the predictability of the weather. When we got here, about the first thing we learned was that it rained at 4pm each day, with the rain accompanied by thunder and lightning, and that the downpour would stop as suddenly as it began. The thunder and lightning bit turned out to be true, as we sat chatting near the venue pool with a couple of Green Vegans yesterday, but “rain” was clearly an understatement. On cue at 4pm, after a great crack and drum roll, the Heavens opened. I tried to take a photo of the waterfall bouncing off the pavement, but the image turned out to be so blurred I regretted not turning on video. Half an hour later it was over, and after that much time again the pavements were dry. Awesome.

Potentially awesome, too, is what is happening in the room here. IWC 64 is looking like the last round in this fight for a couple of years, as the Commission will almost certainly move to biennial meetings, and it’s shaping up to be a brouhaha. I have a feeling the word “enough!” is in the air, and that the folk who are lovers of whales aren’t going to take it any more. They occupy a clear majority of the seats, yet they cannot exert their will, thanks to the corruption spread by Japan with the active cooperation of Norway and Iceland, with Denmark close beside.

This morning, the ambition of Latin American countries to establish a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary was defeated once again, this time by a narrower margin than in previous attempts that began in 1998, but still a defeat. The outcome was unsurprising, including to the proponents, but the point was made. A 64% majority supported their proposal, short of the ¾ majority demanded by Commission rules, but enough to be called a landslide victory in other arenas. The fact that a vote was held at all amounted to a watershed moment in that it was the first IWC vote of any kind taken in 4 years. Last year the mere thought of a vote was enough to tear the meeting asunder because of Japan’s fear of things slipping beyond its control. This time, perhaps because of a change of leadership in its delegation, Japan was less strident, though the outcome was the same. No Sanctuary for whales in the South Atlantic. The decision leaves open the door to future commercial exploitation, a future that is clearly on Japan’s mind despite the real world, which includes declining interest in domestic consumption of whales at home, and increasing opposition abroad.

Very sadly, the USA is party to the unholy brew that is pushing whales onto the old track where they are seen solely as resources to be exploited by whoever comes along with a wish list. In this meeting, the wish list includes an “aboriginal” request by St. Vincent and the Grenadines that dates “all the way” back to 1875 (hardly ancient history) when a family whale killing business started up on the tiny Caribbean island of Bequia. At one point in the past there was some sympathy for the old whaler, which was accompanied by a tacit understanding that the hunt would end when he died. Not so. The old whaler has gone but his legacy has been seized by Japan in a cynical move towards the goal of having its coastal whaling operations declared “traditional”, if not strictly aboriginal, and therefore allowed under IWC rules.

Over the past year, the U.S.A. has led an ad hoc group discussion aimed at settling the aboriginal whaling issue at this meeting. Somehow, it came up with the crazy idea that bundling all the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling requests together would be the easiest way for it to secure a 4 or 6 year Bowhead quota for its native Alaskan communities. It’s unsure what tea was served at the ad hoc get-togethers, but the insult of this morning’s vote, combined with the prospect of having to agree to the brutal slaughter of mother and baby humpbacks, was sticking in the craw of many Latin American delegates by the end of this day. Accompanying that thought was the marvelous video imagery of living humpbacks presented by Panama in the opening session – just about everyone applauded enthusiastically, though not Japan. The upshot is a real possibility that a vote will be demanded on the request by St. Vincent and the Grenadines. If this happens, the veneer of politeness that frames this meeting may fray.

Tomorrow, we will find out whether tonight’s party, hosted by Panama, was sufficient to achieve the reconciliation of views hoped for by the new Swiss Chair at the end of this afternoon’s session, or whether the distant sounds of thunder we’re hearing are the drums of war.

Dr. Paul Spong is a neuroscientist and cetologist from New Zealand. He has spent more than 30 years researching orcas in BC and is credited with increasing public awareness of whaling, through his involvement with Greenpeace and the International Whaling Commission.

NDP Pushes Past Conservatives in Federal Polling

June 29, 2012Canada, PoliticsPolitics, Stephen Harper, Thomas MulcairCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from The Vancouver Sun, reporting on a national survey by Global TV and Postmedia that gives the NDP a 3-point advantage over their Conservative counterparts. Is Stephen Harper paying a price for his controversial omnibus budget bill, which guts environmental laws and rolls back Old Age Security, among other dramatic non-budgetary policy changes? (June 22, 2012)

OTTAWA — The federal New Democratic Party has become the leading choice among Canadian voters — especially those in Ontario and Quebec — as the most favoured party to govern the country, a major new poll has found.

The national survey commissioned by Postmedia News and Global TV also reveals that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Tories are slipping in popularity and the once-powerful Liberals are continuing to wane.

Ultimately, the poll conducted this week by Ipsos Reid reveals a historic shift in political allegiances, as a growing consensus forms around the NDP among those Canadians who would like to see Harper’s Tories removed from office.

According to the poll, which asked Canadians who they would vote for if an election occurred today, the NDP under Thomas Mulcair would receive 38 per cent of the popular vote, up three points since last month. (That’s also well up from the 2011 election, when the NDP finished second with 31 per cent of the vote.)

The governing Tories would receive 35 per cent of the vote, down two points since last month (and also down from the 40 per cent they attained to win a majority government last year.)

Support for the Liberal party, now heading into an unpredictable leadership race that won’t include its current leader Bob Rae, is also shaky. The party would get 18 per cent of the vote, down one point from its showing in the 2011 election.

The Green party would receive about four per cent of the vote. And the Bloc Quebecois, once powerful in its province, is now running second to the NDP there.

Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said in an interview Friday that the findings are part of a significant trend which shows Canadians are becoming more polarized around key issues such as the economy, the role of government, and taxes.

He said left-wing, “progressive” voters are now coalescing around the political voice that offers the strongest opposition to Harper’s government.

“That’s what’s happening now for the NDP,” said Bricker.

“We’re seeing that there is an opposition emerging. People who are against Harper figure that they have the best chance of defeating them, and that’s where they are going.”

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.