Tag Archives: FIPA

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

Audio: Damien Gillis Talks Chinese FIPA, Fracking, Water on Nanaimo Radio

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons, , , , ,
Share

Damien Gillis appeared recently on Nanaimo’s CHLY Radio to discuss a number of key political and energy issues in Canada. Gillis and host Rae Kornberger of A Sense of Justice cover the controversial proposed Canada-China trade deal and how that relates to energy and environmental issues in BC particularly. Included amongst these is natural gas fracking in northeast BC and the enormous volumes of fresh water required for these operations. Listen to the interview in two parts – as well as one highlight clip dealing with proposed water licences for fracking. (recorded Nov. 28, 2012)

Highlight Clip: Water Licences for Fracking (6 min)

Full Interview – Part 1: Chinese FIPA

Full Interview – Part 2: Water, Fracking and Fort Nelson First Nation

Share

Stopping FIPA: Follow-up Action You Can Take to Halt Canada-China Trade Deal

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

Call to Action to support Our Follow-up Correspondence with Lead Negotiator and Cabinet

We have been overwhelmed with your support for the Common Sense Canadian’s effort to prevent the ratification of FIPA and want to extend our thanks to the many readers who have participated so far.

Since November 1, the Common Sense Canadian has been reporting about the significant FIPA Environmental Assessment (EA) process not yet completed. Our reports have detailed how the FIPA Environmental Assessment offers us a clear path for an effective action to prevent ratification.

Our detailed reporting has uncovered many serious shortcomings that we have worked to bring to your attention and we have therefore encouraged people to submit some of these concerns to the FIPA EA committee through a public hearing process that is open until November 11, 2012 for the General Public.

Now we are going to communicate our closing argument and we need your continued support.

This is our final call to action in advance of the closing of this public comment window – Only 3 Days Left to send this crucial message. We will, however, continue to stay on top of the FIPA file and explore and share other means by the public can work to prevent this disastrous treaty.

We have drafted the letter below as our closing correspondence regarding the EA process to FIPA’s Lead Negotiator, demanding ratification of FIPA not occur at this time and detailing our reasons.

We are requesting that the Lead Negotiator of the FIPA Treaty, who is also the Chairman of the EA process, take into account the obvious facts we present in this letter which prove that the treaty-enabling EA is severely compromised and no longer relevant or even applicable, and therefore cannot be completed at this time and must be extended or reopened.

This is a crucial requirement for the ratification process and an enabling mechanism of the FIPA Treaty. We are confident that sending this message loud and clear will have an impact.

In a nutshell, we are arguing that the entire decade-long process was done under laws and processes that no longer exist as a result of Harper’s Omnibus Bill which occurred after the negotiations were officially completed and before the Final Treaty is to be ratified.

This move of Harper’s is unconscionable and fatally detrimental to the Treaty Process.

The FIPA EAC has concluded that no increase in investment is expected from the Treaty and therefore no appreciable environmental impacts were anticipated as a result. Yet, plainly, under Canada’s new, severely-lacking environmental regulatory regime and the stated policy of the Harper Government to advance Canadian hydrocarbon development through this and other trade initiatives, the original conclusions of the FIPA EA are no longer valid and that a new process must be undertaken to ensure the best interests of the Canadian public and environment are properly protected.

If we ratify the Treaty now, we effectively lock in the new, much-diminished environmental laws and regulations he ushered in with the highly controversial Bill C-38 for up to 31 years, according to independent trade experts. Contrary to the FIPA EAC’s conclusions, this would have profoundly negative long-term impacts on Canada’s environment and thus must be prevented.

What You Can Do to Help One More Time – It’s easy!

We are asking those who agree with the findings and recommendations contained in the following letter to simply copy and paste the letter and send it to the e-mail addresses below.

We urge you to do so even if you have already submitted comments.

Doing so will send this definitive message, loud and clear, that the FIPA Ratification CAN AND MUST BE STOPPED as a result of the information clearly laid out in this letter that proves the EA process is defunct and void of legitimacy and therefore needs to be revisited BEFORE Cabinet moves to ratify the agreement or deliberate any enabling measures, including Orders in Council.

————————————————————

To the Lead Negotiator of the FINAL FIPA EAC,

It is our understanding that the Canada-China FIPA Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) is chaired by the Lead Negotiator of the entire treaty process.

The Environmental Assessment is a significant, enabling component of FIPA. Its Guiding Framework, established in 2001, explains that the lead negotiator/chairman oversees the entire FIPA EA process which involves, at its very core, a “detailed analysis including ways in which the GoC’s current analysis could be strengthened.” The EA Framework goes onto outline that, “It is important to keep in mind that the assessment is focused on the possible positive and negative environmental impacts in Canada.”

The EAC specifically points out that the EA process and analysis is largely based on the fact that, “…investors, whether they are Canadian or foreign, are bound by environmental protection regulations and projects resulting from these investments are subject to applicable environmental assessment legislation.”

This is a pivotal point because the legislation referred to here, for which this detailed analysis and related conclusions are based upon, is the same legislation the Harper Government recently gutted and replaced with an entirely new and much-diminished legislative framework – through its Omnibus Bill C-38, which was introduced mere weeks after the FIPA negotiations were officially completed in February of 2012.

Moreover, even more changes have just recently been introduced in the second Omnibus Budget Bill.

This means the EAC conducted its “detailed analysis” on a legislative framework that no longer exists and is no longer relevant to the FIPA process, which clearly renders this key conclusion contained in the FIPA EA final report baseless and therefore irrelevant and invalid:

The Initial EA of the Canada-China FIPA concludes that significant changes to investment in Canada are not expected as a result of the Canada-China FIPA negotiations as there are no specific investments known to be dependent on the FIPA’s conclusion or no direct known causal links between FIPAs and expansion of investment. As such, the environmental impacts on Canada are expected to be minimal.

Quite the contrary, the new reality is that this FIPA and the industrial hydrocarbon development and trade it is clearly designed stimulate under Stephen Harper’s direction present grave threats to Canada’s environment. Given that the final conclusions (in bold above) are therefore no longer of any practical use or application, it is an absolute imperative that the Final FIPA EA be extended or re-opened to allow for proper analysis in light of the wholesale changes that have occurred since the EAC came to those conclusions.

Furthermore, throughout the entire FIPA EA process it is apparent that there was no stakeholder feedback, as two, month-long stakeholder input periods – one in 2005 and another in 2008 – passed without a single submission from anyone, including the general public.

Therefore, we are calling on the Lead Negotiator of the FIPA and chair of the FIPA Environmental Assessment Committee move to extend and/or reopen the Environmental Assessment process in order to perform the required detailed analysis and undertake the consultative stakeholder engagements necessary to properly assess the environmental impacts resulting from the ratification of FIPA under an entirely new legislative framework.

We are also insisting that Cabinet recognize the necessity of the Lead Negotiator to undertake this crucial extension of the FIPA EA in order to properly fulfill the legislated mandate of the FIPA EAC by delaying any Order in Council related to the enabling of the Chinese FIPA. The same should apply to any and all enabling legislation, acts or approval by the Governor General of Canada.

Under Canada’s new, severely-lacking environmental regulatory regime and the stated policy of the Harper Government to advance Canadian hydrocarbon development through this and other trade initiatives, it is clear that the original conclusions of the FIPA EA are no longer valid and that a new process must be undertaken to ensure the best interests of the Canadian public and environment are properly protected.

Sincerely,

Kevin Logan
Damien Gillis
Common Sense Canadians

Send your letter to this address: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

It is important that you also copy Cabinet – in addition, you may wish to include your MP or the full list from BC:

Cabinet (full list):

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca, leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, john.baird@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca

BC MPs:

Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

By riding:

 

Share
Stephen Harper shakes hands with China’s President Hu Jintao in Beijing on Feb. 9, 2012 (photo: Chris Wattie, Reuters)

How You Can Help Stop Ratification of Canada-China FIPA

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

The FIPA Environmental Assessment is an important, official avenue to request the delay of the FIPA Order in Council

The vast implications of the now highly controversial Canada-China trade deal known as FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) are mind-boggling and Canadians have not had the time to fully comprehend what we are being entered into by our federal government.

Numerous campaigns have been launched to bring attention to the issue and prevent ratification of the agreement – most involving online petitions.

Yet there is an official avenue for public opposition that has been largely missed and presents a clear path to delaying FIPA or even preventing its ratification.

The Conservative government must pass an Order in Council in order to facilitate ratification. This is done at the cabinet table.

If you act now and submit your feedback outlining the grave concerns and serious shortcomings in the FIPA Environmental Assessment process, which is still active and open, we may be able to convince cabinet to delay the Order in Council until the pivotal Environmental Assessment is properly undertaken and completed.

You have until Remembrance Day, November 11, 2012, to file your letter with the FIPA EA and we encourage you to copy all Federal Cabinet members and BC Conservative MPs with your submission.

YOU MUST ACT NOW.

We have provided below a short form letter including some key FIPA concerns for your consideration.

We have also provided below a list of the Conservative members of Cabinet who will be deliberating the enabling Order in Council and their email contacts – as well all BC Conservative MPs and their contacts, for our readers in British Columbia.

Simply copy and paste them into your email to ensure they are copied on your submission, and email to EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca by Nov. 11.

——————————————————

Sample FIPA EA Submission

To Environmental Assessments of Trade Agreements,

I am copying Conservative MPs and Cabinet Members on this brief submission to the Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA.

I am submitting these comments to the Final EA before the November 11th deadline to request an extension for this important process, while urging cabinet to delay the FIPA-enabling Order in Council until the serious concerns outlined in this letter and by many other Canadians have been properly addressed.

It has been confirmed that no public input has been received over the 11-year FIPA EA process, including two separate month-long periods requesting feedback from stakeholders and the general public.

The conclusions of the Final EA and its public consultation and engagement practices reveal a great number of shortcomings – which draw into question the need for this agreement, while raising dire concerns of how it came about and grave reservations with respect to its recommendations.

It is stated in the Final EA analysis that FIPA will not result in any investment, nor will it impact the environment.

Given these conclusions, and the lopsided risk-benefit analysis provided by credible independent analysts, I am requesting that the FIPA EA process be extended to include a review of these contradictory analyses and conclusions.

I also believe the domestic consultations and engagement were not properly conducted, resulting in no feedback or input. The recent outpouring of public concern clearly suggests this lack of EA submissions does not accurately reflect the level of public concern about the issue. Therefore, I also request the opportunity to revisit and extend this vital component of the Environmental Assessment.

The Canada-China FIPA is of concern for a number of reasons, which have been raised through recent independent, expert analysis. These concerns include:

  • FIPA works to ‘lock in” the much diminished environmental regulatory regime recently ushered in by the Harper Omnibus Bill C-38, the full impacts of which have yet to be seen or understood
  • FIPA potentially negates the ability of government to legislate changes in environmental regulations, royalty rates, subsidies and any other laws that impact profitability
  • FIPA has serious constitutional implications which could have grave impacts on the environment, economy and Canadian sovereignty
  • The FINAL FIPA EA was to be included and available at the end of negotiations in February, yet no public comment has been included during the entire 11 years of negotiations
  • FIPA may have serious ramifications on the Treaty Process and on constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate First Nations where their traditional territories, resources and cultural practices are at risk from industrial development

I would like these issues addressed before Cabinet considers the FIPA OIC. Therefore, a delay in Cabinet deliberation of the OIC is imperative.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

——————————————————

Send your letter to this address: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

It is important that you also copy Cabinet – in addition, you may wish to include your MP or the full list from BC:

Cabinet (full list):

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca,leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, john.baird@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca

BC MPs:

Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

By riding:

Share

URGENT FIPA UPDATE: Public Comment Period Still Open for Canada-China Trade Deal

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

UPDATE: Step-by step ininstructions on how to submit your comments to the FIPA EA process by November 11 – act now!

The Common Sense Canadian posted a detailed breakdown of the Environmental Assessment process for the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) between Canada and China earlier this week.

In that piece we noted the fact that the final Environmental Assessment seemed absent in the soon-to-be-ratified FIPA.

Since publishing the story we have learned that indeed the final EA report has not been completed AND there is still time for input from Canadians.

We urge our readers to share their concerns about the process and inform the Government of Canada about the significant environmental impacts of FIPA.

Learn more about the FIPA EA at this government website.

And submit your comments by emailing: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

We will soon be posting more details about FIPA impacts that people can include their submissions.

Share