Tag Archives: Politics

Rafe Tells Harper and Oliver He’s Ready for the Bulldozers

Share

Joe Oliver, Harper’s Resources minister, is a dangerous man. Indeed so is Harper. They have flung down the gauntlet, essentially saying that violence is the inevitable consequence of BC not taking the Enbridge Pipeline, the consequent tanker traffic, increased capacity and tankers for the Kinder Morgan line – with only a grumble or two from bitching NDP types.
 
What should really get our juices jumping is the statement that environmental hearings should proceed speedily and obstacles removed from these projects. it obviously being unthinkable that they could stop them.
 
That is ill-disguised code for, “Listen you assholes, we don’t give a damn about the public process – just get it over with so we can get on with the construction. It doesn’t matter that this monstrous Tar Sands gunk is to be transported through your pristine forests, mountain and streams – get on with it.”
 
“Pay no attention, peasants, to the fact that Enbridge has had over 800 spills since 1998 and that experience shows that the mess can never be cleaned up.”
 
“Disregard your stupid bloody salmon – if Newfoundland can get by without cod, you can get by without salmon and, come to think of it, if you have adult seals, there must be pups somewhere to bludgeon and we’ll find a subsidy for you.”
 
“There’s lots of money there for First Nations so stop bringing them into the discussion – as soon as we find out what their price is we’ll pay it and get on with it…why we in the federal government have been dealing with these savages, er First Nations, since 1867 and they trust us.”
 
“And who gives a damn that the people in BC are against these projects – we run things here!”
 
I oppose violence with every remaining sinew in my body but I’m saying to Harper and Oliver that violence is what their policies will bring. I haven’t had a fight since about Grade VII and I lost that one but I can tell you that I’m prepared to stand in the way of that first shovel and take the consequences. And I say to you both that you’re making a mistake if you think you can do these things without very serious consequences.
 
There is no middle way, Prime Minister – this Tar Sands gunk has to go by train or truck through Alberta to Houston because it isn’t coming though BC or through her waters.
 
Do you understand what this issue means to us, Prime Minister?
 
Look what happened in Alberta with the National Energy Plan! There were no environmental hazards involved, just money. The country was shaken to its roots by this policy and the Tories could only get into government and stay there by promising to tube the program.
 
That policy was politically inconsequential compared to the pipelines and tankers.
 
Think on this Mr. Harper: the roar from BC has not come about from the lack of money accompanying the pipelines – because it’s not about the money – yet you tell us a bunch of barnyard droppings about the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Even if that crap was true we’ll not be bought off.
 
You talk as if First Nations will no doubt succumb to a billion dollar bribe and act as if this is just a money game and that you simply haven’t reached high enough for them.
 
What if you’re wrong, Mr. Harper – even you must consider the possibility of error. What then? Do you expect the First Nations to do nothing?
 
I believe you are dead wrong about our First Nations and you’re a damned fool if you simply go into your Ottawa shell and pull the covers over your head.
 
Prime Minister, you seem to be oblivious of the damage you’re doing.
 
The province of BC knows that these hearings are phoney but in a curious way they help us because they give people a place to vent their feelings and come together for the fight.
 
We know that you couldn’t care less that Enbridge has had 811 “accidents” since 1998. But take a moment, Mr. Harper, to check out the July 2010 Enbridge spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River; compare that geography with ours and you’ll see that there is no way Enbridge could do anything about a spill in British Columbia, even if they could get anything to it. It’s a problem of nature that not even you and Mr. Oliver can do anything about. Bitumen, because of its viscous nature, is like black ooze – you can’t get rid of it.
 
We know from experience that spills from tanker accidents last for decades.
 
MOSTLY WE KNOW WE KNOW THAT ON LAND AND AT SEA, ACCIDENTS ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES.
 
You must know these things too, Prime Minister, so why are you doing this to us?

Share

Harper Govt Recieves Funding From Same US Foundations That Fund Enbridge Opposition

Share

Watch this video from CTV News reporting that several federal government programs receive charitable funds from some of the same US Foundations who support of Canadian anti-Enbridge campaigns. (Jan. 24, 2012)

OTTAWA — Rich American foundations are not only footing the bill for opposition to Canada’s oilsands.

Tax returns show the Canadian government has also been the beneficiary of millions of dollars in largesse from some of the wealthiest private organizations in the United States.

And some of that money came from the same U.S. groups that helped fund Canadian environmentalists.

The grants to the federal government come to light as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the pro-oilsands website EthicalOil.org take Canadian environmental groups to task for accepting money from big American foundations to finance their campaigns against the oilsands.

Share

Whistleblower’s Affidavit Says Harper Govt. Threatened Tides Foudation and ForestEthics Over Enbridge Opposition

Share

Read this story from The Winnipeg Free Press on the case of a recently fired whistleblower’s contention that the Harper Government threatened Vancouver-based charitable organization the Tides Foundation with shutting down all its charitable operations if it didn’t cut off funding to ForestEthics – for its work opposing the Enbridge pipeline. (Jan 24, 2012)

A former employee of an environmental group critical of a proposed oilsands pipeline says the Prime Minister’s Office threatened a funding agency if it didn’t pull its support for the group.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper denies the allegations.

In a sworn affidavit released Tuesday to The Canadian Press, Andrew Frank says he was told by his supervisor at ForestEthics that a PMO official had referred to their organization as an “enemy of the state.” The affidavit describes how staff were told their jobs were at risk after the official told Tides Canada, which supports the work of ForestEthics, that the government would “take down” all of the agency’s projects unless it cut ForestEthics loose.

Tides gets most of its money from private foundations and funds a wide array of social and environmental charities in Canada — from Big Brothers and Big Sisters to the World Wildlife Fund. It also partners with major corporations and governments, including federal government agencies.

Frank was fired from his job as communications adviser at ForestEthics on Monday over his plans to go public.

Read more: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/greenpage/affidavit-accuses-prime-ministers-office-of-threatening-environmental-charity-137994418.html

Share

Should BC Have a Referendum on Enbridge?

Share

If there’s one thing above all politicians hate it’s democracy. For God’s sake, we can’t have the rabble have a say in decisions! Let them do this once and we’ll never get to run the province again! They believe that we live in a parliamentary, representative “democracy” which means that we hire people, called representatives, to do our thinking for us and take decisions in our name.
 
Any thinking citizen knows that the public, for many reasons, cannot grapple with all the issues and email a vote on each one. The theory of our government, runs the mantra, is that at election time we can throw those we disagree with out on their duffs. That, at any rate, is the theory.
 
In practice that doesn’t happen, which means that a government does what it wishes – subject only to elections every four years at which time new issues cloud the old.
 
There is a way that the public can be consulted: a referendum. This is a tool used in many different ways, under different systems – sometimes as a method to get rid of a politician, sometimes to eradicate legislation, sometimes only to go to governments as popular advice.
 
I believe there are issues of such importance that the voter must be called upon to render its opinion and I say that the Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic are just such issues.
 
On the national scene, in 1992 we had a referendum on changing our constitution when the government could have sought approval of the provinces. This vote was held because the issues went to the root of our social contract.
 
The referendum resulted in heavy debate in the country, especially in BC. Canada turned down the proposed agreement with BC by far the biggest “no” vote.
 
In BC recently we had a referendum on the HST. It was easy to handle on the technical side and the public made its decision.
 
Whether or not that vote was an example of a debate that went to the root of our system of governance is debatable but I give you an issue that clearly does. I refer to the proposed twin pipelines to Kitimat, the subsequent tanker traffic and the expansion of the Kinder Morgan line and its increase in tanker traffic on the south coast. This package of policies to bring bitumen to our coast and ship it by tanker does indeed present a permanent change in policy on an issue that certainly goes to the root of our way of life.
 
That these Enbridge pipelines will leak is now beyond debate and it’s crystal clear that even if the company does get to a spill in wilderness BC, there is nothing it can do – the damage will be permanent. It’s the same, we surely must agree, with a tanker spill in our coastal waters. Enbridge has an appalling record, over 800 spills since 1998. Moreover, apart from temporary jobs in construction and a handful of permanent jobs, BC gets nothing for being the overland conduit for the highly toxic bitumen from the Tar Sands.
 
Prime Minister Harper and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver are talking about this all being a done deal.
 
Does the destruction of our environment not seem to you to be a matter we the public should have a say in?
 
In making this case I understand that it would not disturb First Nations land and other claims.
 
Let’s be clear on this – Prime Minister Harper hasn’t any time for democracy.
 
Because these issues are so important, Premier Clark should hold a referendum but she hasn’t the courage – she’s afraid to threaten Harper on the HST and of more concern, she wants Harper to withhold all support for John Cummins at the local level. That should be easy since Harper and Cummins loathe one another.
 
So to Premier Photo-Op: Madam, BC has jurisdiction over its coastline so let’s have that referendum.
 
Oops! I nearly forgot – is the debate I proposed between you and me on our environmental policy a go?
 
Surely you, with an entire government behind you, can’t be afraid of taking on an old man who would only bring to the debate all he has left – a fire in his belly!
 
Back to business – will you have a referendum and let the people decide what must be the law concerning pipelines and tanker traffic in this province of ours?
 
If not, why not?
 

Share

Breaking: Obama to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline Today (But Will Allow TCP to Re-apply with Different Route)

Share

Read this story form the Washington Post, which reports that Obama is expected to reject the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline today. (Jan. 18, 2012)

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline.

Read original post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2012/01/18/gIQAwoVE8P_story.html

Share

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

Share

Get MP3 (51 MB)

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

Share

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

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

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Groups Opposing Enbridge Worried They May Lose Their Charitable Status

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share