Brian Mulroney needed political help in Quebec and persuaded all the premiers to support a set of constitutional reforms - labelled the Meech Lake Accord - whereby all the other premiers would postpone their constitutional ambitions until Quebec was settled nicely away with its "Distinct Society" designation AND a veto over all future constitutional proposals. If you've advanced past Politics 101 you will see that once satisfied, Quebec could and would veto other changes such as Senate reform. With a few hours to go, Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon moved that the Meech Lake Accord be debated and asked special leave, which was needed, to bring it forward. The special leave was refused by Elijah Harper, who passed away last week, and Meech Lake was dead.
Kevin's career has been diverse, ranging from small business to NGOs through finance and government. Early on, he operated the research department for the Vancouver branch of international brokerage Richardson Greenshields. After leaving the finance industry he owned operated small businesses and eventually established a consulting company which contracts with both the private and public sectors. He served as a ministerial assistant to numerous ministers and a premier in the former BC NDP Administration. Kevin is also an independent researcher and writer who has administered many diverse and successful campaigns.
From Common Sense Canadian contributor Kevin Logan comes this multimedia examination of where Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberal Party really stand on proposed oil pipelines and tankers in BC.
Christy Clark and the BC Liberals have made a lot of bold claims about their position on pipelines proposed for British Columbia.
However, what they have neglected to tell British Columbians is that their government has entered into binding agreements that ensure the success of pipelines from Alberta to the BC Coast.
Everyone knows there has been a lot of politics surrounding pipeline developments in British Columbia, but very few are aware of the longstanding agreements, established by the BC Liberals, that ensure the success of the proposed pipelines and have thoroughly tied the hands of all BC Stakeholders leaving them with no capacity to actually impact the processes that will ensure the success of these developments.
The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) and New West Partnership Agreement (NWPA) which it developed into absolutely confirm that no level of government in British Columbia can block pipeline development. Nor can they impede trade through the province or create any obstacle, whatsoever, that prevents pipelines from Alberta from reaching BC's tidal waters. Doing so would result in fines of up to 5 million dollars per infraction.
The June 2010 "Equivalency Agreement", done in secret by the BC Liberals with the Harper Conservative Government - and against the letter of the law - forfeits BC's ability to review, assess and decide on these pipeline proposals which threaten to transform the province as we know it.
The video presents these documents, and exposes the BC Liberal election posturing on pipelines as hollow and meaningless. These concepts, backed by government documentation, have been published online and are readily available for anyone interested.
Yet Christy Clark has never publicly acknowledged their existence. More importantly, she has also positioned her party for re-election on claims that run counter to these indisputable facts.
In fact, the material contained in the above video proves that Christy Clark's claims that she can block or prevent these pipeline proposals, based on her "tough NEW stance" and "5 conditions" is without merit, not based in reality and ignores the existence of these agreements of her government's own making.
The video closes with live footage from the most recent Estimates debate for the Ministry of Energy, where the Minister of Everything, Rich Coleman, is on tape discussing his government's "non-disclosure agreements" with the world's largest oil companies.
This fact has gone unreported and exposes the bold hypocrisy of the BC Liberal campaign, which has had the audacity to broadly claim the BC NDP is "concealing" their position on these pipeline developments.
There is not one mainstream media report that covers the "non-disclosure agreements" the world's largest oil and gas companies have with the BC Liberals, even though the minister responsible has made their existence known in the public debate contained in this video.
Stories on these topics (see below) have been published on the internet for over a year, yet no one has refuted them, and Christy Clark has never publicly acknowledged their existence.
They impact all British Columbians and are crucial to our future.
Independent salmon biologist Alexandra Morton has worked tirelessly and endlessly to raise awareness about the threat open net pen salmon farms presents to our coast.
For decades now, this frequently published scientist has worked to understand the impacts of this industry on wild salmon. She has also clearly demonstrated that the entirety of the wild salmon economy far and away exceeds the importance of this one industry alone.
The Wild Salmon economy dwarfs, by any measure, the economic benefit of fish farming and it makes no sense to continue putting the health of our wild salmon at risk as a result. This was covered in Damien Gillis' recent article in The Common Sense Canadian - which notes the staggering disparity between the sport fishing and salmon-dependent tourism economy and the paltry jobs and economic value provided by salmon farms.
The video below is from a recent screening of Salmon Confidential, a stunning documentary which has taken BC by storm, generating 115,000 views online and packed halls around the province since its release last month.
This short clip includes Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May, Alexandra Morton and a Provincial Candidate for the BCNDP, Gary Holman. Highlighted in the video is the current position of the BCNDP.
For the past few months the NDP has claimed that the Provincial Government has no jurisdiction or capacity to move on the information Alexandra has provided on viruses affecting wild and farmed salmon and bring an end to the threat to the Wild Salmon economy and deeply entrenched coastal culture of this great province.
However, the NDP has committed to "adopting the Cohen Commission recommendations", which include a focus on applying the "Precautionary Principle" when dealing with the future of this industry and removing salmon farms from the Discovery Islands by 2020, unless DFO can prove they are having "less than minimal impact."
This is a very welcome development. It means the NDP has committed to exercising this important Precautionary Principle when establishing policy related to this industry.
With that knowledge, let's turn to the notion that BC has no jurisdiction as a result of a recent lawsuit which saw the Federal Government assume much of the oversight of the industry.
While this is essentially true, there is in fact a little known clause that exists in the agreements the Province holds with each and every fish farm.
It is an exit clause in their tenures which can be exercised within 60 days - with no compensation - that revokes the license for them to operate, if it is in the public interest. (See the full occupation license here)
Here is the exact text from Section 5, Subsection 8
8.1(g) (Termination) states that Marine Harvest agrees with the Province that "if we require the Land for our own use or, in our opinion, it is in the public interest to cancel this Agreement and we have given you 60 days' written notice of such requirement or opinion, this Agreement will, at our option and with or without entry, terminate your right to use and occupy the Land."
s. 8.3(a) goes further, and states, "You agree with us that (a) you will make no claim for compensation, in damages or otherwise, upon the lawful termination of this Agreement under section 8.1." (emphasis added)
Given the NDP has adopted the Cohen Commission recommendation of exercising the Precautionary Principle, and there is ample evidence that our wild salmon are at risk, it is time we encourage the NDP to focus on these licenses, and engage this industry in a proactive fashion in a bid to eliminate this unacceptable risk to the economy and long established culture that healthy wild salmon supports.
Let's all encourage those NDP candidates seeking your vote to honor their commitment to adopt the Precautionary Principle as recommended by the Cohen Commission.
And let's press each and every one of them to act on these license agreements, with a focus on resolving this clear and indisputable threat, by asking them to execute the termination clause for fish farms licensed to operate on wild salmon migration routes.
If the NDP wants to be seen as credible on their claim of adopting Cohen's recommendations and do whats right for the economy, then they must act now and follow though on their commitment while supporting the growth of the Wild Salmon economy - already more than ten times bigger than the salmon farming industry.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford recently took the unprecedented step of holding a "State of the Province" Address. This hauntingly American-style public relations stunt came about as a result of the longstanding work of behind-the-scenes chief architect of Canada as an Energy Superpower, David Emerson.
Here at the Common Sense Canadian we have tracked in some detail the efforts of former Harper Government Trade Minister David Emerson and his role as Chair of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC). We have noted that while Mr. Emerson garners little coverage in mainstream media, his fingerprints can be found on every aspect of Canada's evolution into a petro state. The corporate-driven policy "think tank" EPIC is the instrument of Emerson's work.
This, we demonstrated, was evident when premiers took centre stage in Nova Scotia last summer to talk up Canada's "National Energy Strategy", while exploring "what was in it for every Canadian." A central talking point dictated by Emerson and his EPIC communications shop in the exhaustive National Energy Strategy package he provided to all of the nation's premiers, energy ministers and the PMO/PCO.
We underscored how this was just the tip of the iceberg in a longstanding trend where Emerson and EPIC drafted, promoted and delivered every recent development we have seen on the energy file. From the National Energy Strategy, through the raft of legislative changes we have seen since Harper came to power, including the paradigm shift in environmental policies dictating resource exploitation contained in the recent Omnibus Bills.
We undertook an exhaustive campaign, which grew exponentially in response to the secretive processes surrounding the establishment of the FIPA treaty, and we pointed to Emerson's time in office as Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway (before returning to the private sector in 2008 to work for the China Investment Corporation) where he claimed that establishing the Chinese FIPA was his "ultimate goal." And we did our best to stop it.
Today we are going to explore Emerson's role in what is being billed as a "once in a generation" restructuring of the Province of Alberta, establishing a New Normal, while the Province prepares to ratchet up Tar Sands production to meet the five-fold increase the Harper government and industry outlined as their shared goal early in the Conservative mandate.
For decades the Alberta Advantage defined that Province as the apparent envy of the nation. No Provincial sales tax, capital tax, payroll tax or health premiums was the "advantage" Albertan's enjoyed as a result of their oil bounty. This was the foundation of a mountain of oily rhetoric that promoted self-reliance, hard work, small government, no taxes, cheap fuel and lots of toys - all of which defined "freedom" in the public psyche of Alberta.
Enter David Emerson.
Albertans have come to accept that oil wealth does not translate into cheap gasoline for their huge trucks. They have come to understand that small government means less service, but are proud to dig deep for the services they want, because they are "self-reliant". They know first hand the environmental impact of a massive exploitation agenda and are aware of the "myth" of climate change. But, can they accept that much like death, provincial taxes are inevitable?
Massive escalation of Tar Sands production is the undercurrent that drives the entire Albertan frame of mind. You can feel it in the streets, at the coffee shops and on the "highway of death" that leads to the EPIC undertaking of the internationally-renowned Tar Sands, the largest industrial activity known to man.
It is therefore widely known that much of the Alberta advantage is oil-driven cultural myth, however the one thing no one can deny is there are no provincial taxes. This is evident in every purchase Albertans make, and apparently this daily reminder is enough to perpetuate the advantage myth and condition the average Albertan to accept foreign interests infiltrating their natural resource bounty, running off with the profits and leaving them to hold the environmental and fiscal bag.
Clearly the real Alberta Advantage falls in favour of foreign investment and almost entirely at the expense of average Albertans. Redford's whole "State of the Province Address", while predicated on myth, does forecast a 6 Billion dollar deficit in the March budget. Yes, thats right, oil rich Alberta, at a time when production rates have never been as high, is filing a SIX BILLION dollar shortfall in oil royalties.
So what does David Emerson have to do with all of this? We have established that Emerson and his shop are the architects of the real Alberta Advantage, steeped largely in favour of foreign interests - and now Albertans are experiencing first hand how he operates.
But what might come as a surprise to even Albertans is Emerson's role in "reshaping" their future.
As appointed chair of the Alberta Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy (thanks to former premier Ed Stelmach who leaned hard on Emerson to get him through the battle over Royalties), Emerson has skillfully guided the policy fix - once again from the behind the scenes and on behalf of the largest most powerful companies on earth - and the Chinese Government.
His intention? The end of the Alberta "no taxes" advantage with a "broad based long term approach," for which they have been priming the pump for years.
Former ICBC CEO and respected independent economist Robyn Allan skillfully analyzes this most current myth-making that EPIC puppet Premier Redford has put at the centre of her "once in a generation" restructuring. In a recent piece, Allan bursts the Bitumen Bubble the EPIC-affiliated propagandists have blown way out of proportion, which sets out Alberta's "New Normal."
Industry and government talking heads are singing from the Bitumen Bubble song sheet, and Allan rips it to shreds in her in-depth, rock-solid analysis, proving that much of the current fearmongering surrounding the finances of oil exports is indeed a bubble of hot air. "The narrative goes like this," she writes. "Resistance to oil pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain's twinning means an ever increasing supply glut in the U.S. Midwest, forcing the price of Western Canadian crude oil downwards as compared to the North American crude oil benchmark West Texas Intermediate -- WTI."
The implication is that oil sands operators would get more value if they could just access new markets via new supply routes. Allan demonstrates this is hogwash, built on some very fuzzy math and ignoring the fact that Alberta bitumen is a low-quality, expensive-to-process product which has and always will fetch bottom dollar compared with more favourable alternatives.
The bottom line of Allan's analysis, is that we are being misled and that lack of access to new markets is not the real problem contributing to Alberta's gargantuan debt, nor will access to new markets via BC fix it. Only reasonable, responsible royalty rates can balance Alberta's budgets, protect and secure the Alberta Advantage and avoid a complete restructuring of the province.
Here is the hot air EPIC's propagandists are using to restructure the Alberta Advantage. By blowing up the Bitumen Bubble and handing the advantages of oil to his corporate colleagues, Emerson's fix is to dump the disadvantages onto average Albertans.
Instead of simply fixing budget shortfalls by establishing responsible royalty rates on massively escalating production rates, Albertans will be treated to a sleight of hand, by funnelling puny royalties into a new fund called "Shaping Alberta's Future". A two year-old Emerson recommendation now topped off with his shafting of Albertans by exploring the "expenditure side of the ledger." I.e. deep cuts and reduced services. But the kicker, of course, the end of "no taxes."
How does Emerson think he is going to strip Albertans of the last modicum of the Alberta Advantage that has long been the pride of Alberta? Can his propagandists shift the public psyche and alter the longstanding reality Albertans have clung to as their one distinguishing factor?
The culture of Alberta has been built around low or no taxes for many decades. It’s not going to be an overnight psychological shift for the people of the province. My own view is you have to start first on the expenditure side and be fairly broad-based and multi-year in your approach.
In other words, start by cutting services, then phase in taxes over several years so people don't get quite so hopping mad.
Redford parrots Emerson's view. "It's about this being a new reality and us having to face that,'' she said in a recent interview.
In a conference call Monday with more than 5,000 members of her Conservative Party, Redford confirmed the province will borrow to pay for new infrastructure, such as roads and schools, and did not rule out the possibility that Albertans will one day be subject to a provincial sales tax.
But don't worry, he has been "shaping the future" of BC for decades, as onetime chair of the BC Progress Board - not to mention CEO of Canfor, the BC Transmission Corporation, the Western Bank of Canada, the BC Trade Development Corp and a directorship at BC Gas...to mention just a few significant BC-specific posts Emerson has held.
Just look at the shape we are in! Our oil and gas deficits are merely a third of what you are looking at. Relax and enjoy the ride. It will be EPIC.
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.
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:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
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.
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.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
BC MPs:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
By riding:
Albas, Dan - Okanagan—Coquihalla:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Duncan, John (Hon.) - Vancouver Island North:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Fast, Ed (Hon.) - Abbotsford:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Findlay, Kerry-Lynne D. - Delta-Richmond East:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Gewal, Nina - Fleetwood-Port Kells:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Harris, Richard M. - Cariboo-Prince George:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Hiebert, Russ - South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Kamp, Randy - Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lunney, James - Nanaimo-Alberni:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mayes, Colin - Okanagan-Shuswap:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
McLeod, Cathy - Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Moore, James (Hon.) - Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Saxton, Andrew - North Vancouver:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Strahl, Mark - Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Warawa, Mark - Langley:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Weston, John - West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Wilks, David - Kootenay-Columbia:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Wong, Alice (Hon.) - Richmond:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Young, Wai - Vancouver South:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Zimmer, Bob - Prince George-Peace River:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
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.
IMPORTANT UPDATE TO FIPA STORY: Public Comment Window Still Open for Canada-China Trade Deal Environmental Assessment. Learn how to officially register your concerns with FIPA here.
An in-depth, out-of-the-box, common sense analysis and discussion paper issued on the day of the expected FIPA ratification.
Since May of this year we here at the Common Sense Canadian have been uncovering the behind-the -scenes legal and administrative practices undertaken by governments and industry collaborators to ensure the success of the oil and gas agenda.
Over the past month we have seen an incredible flurry of concern arise from the Harper Government's move to ratify the Chinese FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement). However much of the consternation expressed has not focused on the fact that this agreement is 15 years in the making and has involved the same players responsible for ensuring the success of behind-the-scenes agreements like the Equivalency Agreement of June 2010 between the Governments of BC and Canada.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) component of the Chinese FIPA was sparked in 1998, however this detailed framework led to a process that spanned over a decade, but more specifically negotiations were "re-launched in 2004" and were "expected to successfully conclude in 2008." And just like the 2010 Equivalency Agreement, the FIPA environmental assessment component included an open invitation for a "30 day time period for input from stakeholders and the general public" which occurred between February 20 and March 21, 2008 at the end of the multi-year FIPA EA consultative process dictated by the framework linked to above and detailed on that website.
In fact, the entire Chinese FIPA Environmental Assessment component included three phases, which were designed for transparency and broad input - here is the exact text:
Three phases of assessment are generally undertaken: the Initial, Draft, and Final EA. These phases correspond to progress within the negotiations. The Initial EA is a preliminary examination to identify key issues. It occurs earlier on in the negotiations. The Draft EA builds on the findings of the Initial EA and requires detailed analysis. A Draft EA is not undertaken if the negotiation is not expected to yield large economic changes. The Final EA takes place at the end of the negotiations. At the conclusion of each phase, a public report is issued with a request for feedback.
"Negotiations, Correspondence, Public Reports" and "Requests for Feedback" were all an integral part of the multi-year Environmental Assessment Process enabling the FIPA agreement, yet few of us heard anything about it and no doubt average Canadians were completely unaware.
4. Invitation to Submit Comments In keeping with the Framework, an Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) has been formed to undertake the analysis of the Canada-China FIPA. Coordinated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canada-China FIPA EAC includes representatives from other federal government departments, including Environment Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and Natural Resources Canada, and is formally chaired by the lead negotiator for the agreement. An important responsibility of the EAC is to gather input from provinces and territories, stakeholders representing business, academics, and non-governmental organizations, as well as the general public. As part of its commitment to an open and transparent process, the Government has opened this Initial EA for public comment from February 20, 2008 to March 21, 2008. Feedback on the likely economic effects and the likelihood and significance of resultant environmental impacts is especially welcome, including ways in which the GoC’s current analysis could be strengthened. It is important to keep in mind that the assessment is focused on the possible positive and negative environmental impacts in Canada.All feedback received is documented in keeping with the guidance contained in the EA Handbook, and circulated to the EAC. It will inform the Final EA of the Canada-China FIPA, as well as ongoing EA work within the Government of Canada. (emphasis added)
Please take the time to visit the link this text has been taken from as it explains in exhaustive detail the Environmental Assessment's “Open and Transparent” Process required to enable FIPA and the way in which the process was conducted. Furthermore, it outlines in detail how Environmental Non Government Organizations (ENGOs) were solicited for input as key stakeholders in the FIPA process.
Once again, as with the June 2010 Equivalency Agreement, we are learning after the fact that our sovereign rights, interests and ability to exert jurisdictional control and decision making over our land and water are being quietly abandoned without our knowledge and seemingly behind closed doors.
This is once again occurring despite the fact that ENGOs, remunerated by governments to participate in Environmental Assessments and related processes, have mandates that read like this one from a prominent BC ENGO known as the Dogwood Initiative, whose organization has been at the forefront of the high profile tanker and pipeline issues unfolding in British Columbia for several years now:
Everything we do is about giving British Columbians ways to take back decision-making power over their land and water. Right now, 96 per cent of British Columbia’s land is owned by the people, but 88 per cent of that land is controlled by large timber, mining and oil companies. That stinks.
We believe British Columbians should have the right to make their own decisions about how the land they live on is used and we know that there is power in numbers. That’s why we work with more than 100,000 supporters, as well as First Nations, businesses and communities, to leverage political victories and find common sense solutions to some of B.C.’s most pressing problems.
Ultimately responsible for these unseemly agreements are our elected leaders like Allison Redford and yet-to-be-elected Premier Christy Clark who have continued the very public bun fight over who gets what - and in so doing Redford maintains her appointed role as the front-woman for the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC) energy strategy, while Clark simply works to cling to power.
However, it is becoming crystal clear that the strategy to massively escalate oil and gas exploitation and liquidation was in the can long ago, just like Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver recently exclaimed in a story entitled, "No need for a National Energy Strategy":
Oliver said Tuesday he has spoken with Alberta Premier Alison Redford on a number of occasions about her plans for a National Energy Strategy. But he said as far as he could tell, Redford mentioned nothing in their conversations that his government wasn't already covering "[But] if you want to put a bow on it and call it a National Energy Strategy, go ahead," Oliver said at the closing news conference of the Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference in Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Indeed, all Clark and Redford seem to be fighting over is what colour bow to put on a now longstanding and complete capitulation to the oil and gas industry and its EPIC agenda. As Rafe Mair outlined in his recent column, the BC Liberal government was admittedly consulted throughout the 15-year Chinese FIPA negotiation period - all Provinces and Territories were (as linked to and outline above).
And they have not only quietly ushered it in, but they are also boosting it at high level international investment summits and overseas junkets to the new BC government Shanghai Office. As Rafe points, out doing so has virtually removed any legal ability for Provinces to reclaim their sovereignty and push back on the Federal Government and the FIPA deal.
It is therefore no wonder why they have boosted the FIPA deal at high-level investment meetings, while resisting pushing it in the media, which has worked to keep the 15 year process away from prying eyes, such as those of local blogger and professionally trained researcher Laila Yuile. Ms. Yuile, has distinguished herself among the BC blogosphere as an astounding researcher with impeccable journalistic integrity. She has made the China file her hobby horse for quite some time now and recently felt compelled to apologize for not being aware of FIPA and issues related to the BC Government. All of which attests to the strategically stealthy component of the British Columbian collaborators on FIPA. If this stuff got by Laila, then you can rest assured very few observers, if any, know of these important issues in the entire Province.
That said, key environmental stakeholders canvassed to be involved are defined as "a very important aspect" of the FIPA process. The Environmental Assessment component, as I touched on above, seems to be one of the most exhaustive components according to the government website. Indeed, the process and its vast implications, of which I formally wrote about in detail at another fine BC political blog, are immense and far reaching.
For instance, in that piece, I mention the fact that Harper's gutting and rewriting of the entire legislative framework pertaining to environmental regulations and processes will be locked in for as long as 31 years and applicable to any Chinese investments occurring after this agreement is ratified. Remember, during the CNOOC/Nexen review it was widely reported that the "we ain't seen nothing yet", as that deal only marked the opening of the Chinese investment floodgates into the oil and gas sector.
Moreover, the Chinese FIPA involved exhaustive and pivotal processes spanning 15 years, resulting in the development of numerous environmental Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) on matters related to protected areas, cooperation on climate change and many on "environmental cooperation", which included the "building of partnerships and facilitation of dialogue among environmental protection agencies, organizations and enterprises in both countries."
While the EA framework for FIPA was established in 2001, the international environmental undertakings began in 1998, however these Bilateral Trade Agreements (FIPAs) were largely left dormant as relics of the past when Canada had struck deals in the 80s and 90 with mostly underdeveloped countries.
However, after globetrotting international financiers who stick-handle trade agreements suffered the very public death of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a renewed strategic focus was born on bilateral agreements done in a stealth-like, one-off fashion.
This was apparently appealing to David Emerson, who entered the fray after crossing the floor to be Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway (before returning to the private sector to work for the China Investment Corporation.) In 2004 he eagerly went to work slam dunking FIPAs, and attempted to complete 4 during his time in office, ranging from little one-offs with minor countries like Peru to larger emerging economies like India.
However, his crowning achievement was the Chinese FIPA, which he kicked into high gear claiming it to be his "Ultimate Goal", as published in the Chinese in Vancouver blog at the time. Once again these deals were left largely unreported in the mainstream media, and even the Chinese in Vancouver blog stated that Emerson's "in camera" meetings had the opposition NDP complaining how hard it was to get "details".
However, the blog did publish all the details of an exhaustive FIPA-related agenda dictated by the Chamber of Commerce, who were among NGOs and governments solicited by the FIPA process, all of which of course has been accomplished and will be complete if FIPA is indeed ratified.
Emerson, who wrote the forward to a Fraser Institute study on FIPA, used his history of "public service" as a catalyst to establish EPIC, which has been busy rewriting the entire legislative framework for oil and gas development ever since. Everything EPIC published was subsequently contained in Harper's Omnibus bills while he positioned his huge corporate coalition as the chief architects of Canada's new "National Energy Strategy."
More recently a key British Columbia-based organization from Emerson's hometown was invited into his EPIC National Energy Strategy at a kick-off meeting in Alberta. Tides Canada, who also established a loose coalition of over 150 endorsers for their strategic tome entitled, "A New Energy Vision for Canada", laid out their vision within the EPIC strategic framework with the backdrop of the scenic Kanaskis mountain range, away from peering eyes and protests - and among governments and oil and gas industrialists, while along side Emerson and his EPIC directors.
Tides is headed up by Joel Solomon, infamously depicted as the "Greenfather" and a shrewd "business first socialist", who is the funding engine behind most all of British Columbian Environmental Organizations (ENGOs), and of course two-term Mayor of the world's "Greenest City", Gregor Robertson.
Solomon's labyrinth of foundations, investment companies and network of "social entrepreneurs" and activists spawned the internationally renowned "Green Think Tank" known as Hollyhock, which led to the development of Hollyhock Leadership Institute among myriad other well-resourced and connected organizations which have become the commanding heights of green, socially responsible development as well as the strategic headquarters for the "Greening the Oil Sands" initiative being communicated through the well-known internet E-zine The Tyee and supported by the online publication more intimately connected to Solomon, the Vancouver Observer.
All of these developments occurred during the course of the exhaustive and far-reaching FIPA Environmental Assessment process and much, much more. During this time we also saw other major achievements in the oil and gas legal and administrative agenda. TILMA (the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) was negotiated and then established in 2006, with barely a whimper from the environmental community, when the BC Liberals invoked closure to ram it through - despite the vast implications for oil and gas developments and the provincial sovereignty that agreement left in an abandon pile on the negotiating room floor.
Then there was the incredible, inconceivable BC Liberal move that spawned the Equivalency Agreement in June of 2010, which iced the cake for the oil and gas lobby. This agreement, done away from the limelight and while the government responsible was being celebrated for a Clean Energy Climate Change Strategy - and lauded by the environmental community - saw BC forfeit its last vestige of sovereignty and jurisdictional control by giving up any and all decision-making capacity on four major oil and gas projects in BC's north, including the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Amazingly, this agreement was implemented by senior staff and not the minister responsible, as the law dictates.
Each one of these far reaching and legally binding agreements would have involved BC stakeholders at all levels, but ENGOS in particular would have been solicited for serious roles as precisely outlined in the FIPA EA framework linked to above. Both the FIPA EA and June 2010 Equivalency Agreement involved a 30-day time period for broad stakeholder commentary, advertized in the Canadian Gazette - a process intimately familiar to British Columbian ENGOs.
When one considers each one of these separately, they appear relatively reasonable and were communicated as if they had little if anything to do with the oil and gas agenda and ultimately were pitched as integral to ensuring an investment climate that would grow our economy. However, after a closer look we learn that the exact opposite is the case. Indeed, these three agreements completely wrap up most every aspect of oil and gas development related to our jurisdiction and leave British Columbians in the cold as virtual bystanders, literally legally stranded as voiceless squatters on their own land.
Works from "the bottom up" versus "the top down" approach the FIPA trade agreement employs - dovetailing nicely
Ensures no level of government can create trade obstacles on or "through" their jurisdictions - doing so results in penalties up to 5 million per infraction
Ensures free flow of "investment" throughout the jurisdictions of all levels of government
Ensures the free flow of labour for all oil and gas projects
Involves a myriad of other details related to labour mobility, Trade and Investments
Was ushered in to law by BC liberals, who invoked closure
Forfeits BC's sovereignty and decision-making capacity
Involves four major oil and gas projects including Enbridge NGP
Negates jurisdiction over land and water
Indeed it would seem that Minister Oliver was exactly right and boldly honest as all Clark and Redford are fighting over is the colour of the bow on the now longstanding strategy for massive escalation in the exploitation and liquidation of Canada's oil and gas resources. The detailed terms in these three agreements leave British Columbians with little if anything else to decide. This is especially true when you consider reams of other supporting agreements like temporary foreign worker legislation and myriad other streamlining legislation which works to sideline all levels of government in deciding the fate and from of major developments slated to occur in British Columbia.
Further to this mind-blowing array of far-reaching, long-lasting, legally-binding policies riddled with serious implications for British Columbia, the Canada-Chinese FIPA also involved a detailed outreach effort to international investment and environmental organizations, resulting in The Canada-China Climate Change Working Group which was formed in March 2004, as a follow up to the Canada-China Joint Statement on Climate Change Cooperation. The Working Group co-ordinates and advances the bilateral effort to respond to climate change.
Other joint efforts include The Framework Statement which created the Canada-China Joint Committee on Environment Cooperation (JCEC) with Environment Canada and the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) as the lead agencies. All of which started when Canada and China signed the “Canada-China Framework Statement for Cooperation on Environment into the 21st Century” during Premier Zhu Rongji's visit to Canada in November 1998.
All of this, while substantial, is not the entirety of the FIPA Environmental Assessment component which was supposed to be released when the FIPA agreement was complete, however Stephen Harper signed the agreement almost six weeks ago and the final Environmental Assessment reporting which enabled FIPA seems absent.
Its absence may be a result of this bombshell directly from the Government's FIPA EA report:
The notice of intent to conduct an EA of the Canada-China FIPA was in the Canada Gazette on November 5, 2005. The notice included an invitation to interested parties to submit their views on the likely environmental impacts of the Canada-China FIPA on Canada. There were no comments received on the Notice of Intent. (emphasis added)
8. Conclusion and Next Steps
Canada’s Framework for Conducting EAs of Trade Negotiations calls for national assessments and allows for consideration of transboundary, regional, and global environmental impacts if they have a direct impact on the Canadian environment. However, it is outside of the scope of this study to assess the potential for positive or negative environmental impacts that could occur in China because of these negotiations, or to judge the measures in place within China to enhance or mitigate such impacts.
Investments in sectors of interest to China may have an impact on the environment. However, the impact would be the same whether the investment is made by a Chinese investors or a domestic investor. In addition, 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. (that is the same legislation Harper just gutted and rewrote)
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.
The Initial EA will be circulated to decision makers to inform the conclusion of the Canada-China FIPA negotiations as well as other policy development activities.
Following the receipt of public comments on the Initial EA, the Final EA will be completed taking into account the consultative findings. In the light of the Initial EA’s conclusions regarding the unlikelihood of significant economic activity and environmental impacts in Canada, preparation of a Draft EA is deemed to be unnecessary. The Final EA will coincide with the conclusion of the Canada-China FIPA negotiations. (emphasis added)
Did you catch that? That underlined bit.
No specific investments known to be dependent on FIPA's conclusion? Nor do they believe there are any links between FIPA and the expansion of investment!
Then what did we do it for and why was it Emerson's "Ultimate Goal?"
And then the kicker: "In the light of the Initial EA’s conclusions regarding the unlikelihood of significant economic activity and environmental impacts in Canada, preparation of a Draft EA is deemed to be unnecessary."
This stuff is incomprehensible! Due to a complete lack of input from the environmental side of the equation or any submission of appropriate analysis, the Federal Government has concluded that there will be no significant impacts on our environment as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars invested in Canada's oil and gas industry.
And how does it all square with Harper's election campaign platform? Here is a snippet from his Energy Platform:
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen (unprocessed oil from the oil sands) outside of Canada for upgrading in order to take advantage of lower pollution or greenhouse gas emissions standards elsewhere.
In conclusion, we have to consider very important impacts that are solidified as a result of the overlapping trade agreements coupled with the forfeiting of British Columbia's sovereignty which demonstrate the green failing on FIPA is less about the environment and more about the cash. This is true as a result of two easy-to-comprehend concepts which are definitive. You cannot change the rules of the game after the investment has occurred and doing so will result in being sued. These notions run through all trade agreements and are at the very heart of the purpose of the FIPA.
Less about the Environment: The wholesale environmental and legislative changes authored by EPIC and ushered in by the Harper Government rewrite the entire legal framework for oil and gas development. As a result of ratifying FIPA on the heels of these changes, each and every future investment in the industry in Canada is therefore guaranteed under these terms for thirty years and many subsequent governments. If however, a subsequent government decides to restore any one of the rollbacks of the Harper government they will be sued under these agreements. If they decide to scrap the FIPA altogether they must give at least one year notice, and each and every investment that occurred during the time FIPA was ratified, will be protected automatically for an additional 15 years upon the revoking of FIPA and all of the existing legislative framework will apply for that time. And, once again, if subsequent changes are made, lawsuits will result reaching into the millions, if not billions. All of which locks in the gutting of environmental legislation and processes that have occurred thus far for a generation as making any changes is too punitive.
More about the Cash: The very same dynamics described in detail above apply to royalty regimes at all levels of government. Currently, oil and gas royalty regimes in Canada are some of the lowest in the world. FIPA locks in those rates for a generation or more and, once again, if any subsequent government wishes to adjust the rates to harmonize them with other jurisdictions - say, like those of oil producing countries in Africa who have recently struck deals with the same major oil companies operating in Canada - that involve Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which reach as high as 75% of total production being steered to public coffers, we will be sued for doing so and it will involve “forecasts of lost profits” which could range into the hundreds of billions, effectively destroying any potential whatsoever of altering royalty regimes away from being the lowest anywhere in the world. Moreover, Chinese companies are not just investing in production and market potential but rather are purchasing companies outright making our exposure to being sued for profit potential enormous. In the final analysis, this agreement is all about the cold, hard cash because even if we never are sued, FIPA ensures profiteering for anyone investing under the terms it dictates, the likes of which is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It is important to remember that at current royalty rates, both BC and Alberta are filing huge deficits. And Canada itself has filed over 125 billion dollars in deficits just since 2008, meanwhile the Tar Sands peaked to its highest production rates in 2010 the same year Harper filed the country's largest deficit in history. Clearly, adjusting some of the lowest royalty rates in the world is required to pull Canada out of the fiscal fire and attempt to return to balanced budgets.
Regardless of what seems to be total insanity as we explore the details of FIPA and supporting agreements. It is important to go through such great lengths and review all of these painstaking details in order to understand how and why it is most Canadians, and British Columbians in particular, where not aware of this agreement.
There was very little mainstream coverage and negotiations seemingly took place out of the public eye and away from the scrutiny of the media. Intentional or otherwise, it has left Canadians very vulnerable. Maybe they believe this agreement means nothing and has no impacts, as this report says, but as is clearly outlined here that is definitely not the case. And it clearly was the National Energy Strategy's chief architect David Emerson's “ultimate goal” for a reason.
Fortunately, some civil society organizations and (NGOs) made the effort to warn Canadians early on, despite not being engaged in the process in any way, or solicited directly for their input. That list includes groups like Canada's Coalition to End Global Poverty, who produced this handy must read handbook entitled, Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Canadian Primer that works to hit the high points of these agreements and their immense implications, including the impacts on sovereignty, the environment and the economy. There were also independent, uninvolved, unsolicited lawyers who have drawn up abstracts which really work to inform Canadians. And the Council of Canadians jumped on FIPA as soon as it came to their attention in September.
In the end, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive how the FIPA's pivotal and enabling environmental assessment process, spanning 15 years, received little if any attention. And it is impossible to understand how an Environmental Assessment involving legislated outreach to stakeholders as an important and pivotal aspect to the success of the agreement garnered "no comments" over a month-long input period at the end of a multi-year process - resulting in conclusions that there was little if any environmental impact, despite the obvious, far -eaching impacts explained here and elsewhere.
The FIPA EA resulted in multiple memorandums of understanding, the establishment of multiple joint international committees, in addition to policy certainty and harmonization. Cooperation on Climate Change initiatives and the list goes on and on, yet somehow all this escaped the lead environmental organizations in British Columbia who are mandated to represent our interests while protecting and furthering our jurisdictional and legal rights.
The lawyers who lead the ENGOS on the forefront of tankers and pipeline issues who signed up thousands for the Enbridge Environmental Assessment alone while undertaking a media campaign spanning years, were somehow unable to comment on, involve themselves in, or write as much as one press release in regard to the FIPA EA since its inception 15 years ago which, when in effect, locks in Harper's gutting of environmental standards for any all Chinese investments now and for thirty years into the future.
To top it all off we learn of all this AFTER the agreement is signed by the Prime Minister and mere months after we first heard that as far back as June 2010, BC gave up its right to its own Environmental Assessment to decide on four major oil and gas development projects, including the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project. Which was accomplished through the establishment of a "secret" equivalency agreement that saw us abandon our sovereign rights and legal jurisdiction in a process that also had been advertised in the Canadian Gazette and involved a month-long period for input from stakeholders. But, once again, the ENGO community who is mandated and remunerated to be involved in these processes said and did nothing.
Adrian Dix stood up for BC and made the move to restore our sovereignty by pledging to revoke the Equivalency Agreement within one week upon being elected.
It is time for all Canadian citizens to stand up and pledge to do whatever it takes to prevent FIPA from being ratified tomorrow or ever.
Here at The Common Sense Canadianwe published, in great detail, beginning in May, the moves the BC Liberals had done behind the scenes to forfeit our Province's ability to review, assess and decide on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project.
In particular, we focused in like a laser on the Equivalency Agreement (EA) the Liberals initiated and signed in secret back in 2010.
We explained how the Minister did the highly unusual and unorthodox move of giving up his ministerial powers as clearly outlined in section 27 of the relevant act, by assigning them to the senior staff of the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). This bold move was an obvious attempt to avoid the political scrutiny that occurs when a Minister of the Crown exercises executive privilege to circumvent standard process.
We underscored how the EA required public input from stakeholders and publishing in the Gazette, all of which some how escaped the standard scrutiny these processes typically attract. We pointed to the work of Robyn Allanwho was courageous enough to publish an open letter demanding the Premier review such unbecoming behaviour and revoke the Equivalency Agreement (EA).
All of which was met with stunning silence on behalf of Ms. Clark and her lame duck government. She treated the whole ordeal as if the agreement never existed as did the minister responsible.
We asked you, the reader, to follow up on the issue and contact the government and demand accountability.
No word yet on what that means for the other three projects outlined in that Equivalency agreement but this bold move is certainly a step in the right direction.
The BC Liberal government is caught flat footed now and must do more than cast aspersions.
The whole sordid affair of how this agreement came about and why they moved to close the door on our Province's ability to make decisions about the use of our land and coast needs to be unearthed. Their work has virtually tied the hands of British Columbian stakeholders, from First Nations to coastal communities and through the many people who rely on tourism and fisheries .
In fact, every British Columbian has a stake in this decision and the BC Liberals need to explain why they gave our power away, behind the scenes and in secret.
In this piece, the first of a series of three, we explore why a National Energy Program is political suicide, yet something called a National Energy Strategy is all the rage.
Decades ago Canadians were treated to a strategy that involved the oil and gas industry called the National Energy Program - its implications still resonate today. The program entailed Canada getting its fair share of the abundant natural resource wealth while establishing Petro-Canada as a vertically integrated, well to pump, crown corporation and an integral component of the industry. At no point did this move represent nationalizing the industry, as most of the world's industry is, but instead simply aimed to have Alberta's resource bounty diversified throughout the nation, while working in conjunction with private industry and its major players. What James Laxer explains as a "Canadianization" of the industry.
Through price controls that kept domestic consumption affordable and taxation on exports, which filled coffers in Ottawa by targeting foreign-owned players in the Canadian oil and gas patch, the federal government was able to offer a wide array of attractive incentives designed solely to encourage the upstart, growth and stability of wholly owned Canadian firms, while at the same time developing the public crown corporation to serve Canadian domestic needs and Interests.
This allowed for a threefold approach which involved: limiting the excessive dominance of foreign oil majors, creating "Oil independence" from the international - OPEC led - market, and encouraging development of private Canadian owned oil companies while nationalizing some of the benefits in an effort to facilitate a strong Canadian stake in the game, important operational inroads into the industry, and a handle on its reserves and future direction.
Since Harper's regime was installed by the oil giants operating in Canada, a much diminished and demonized Petro-Canada was quietly privatized for a song (marking the single largest share divesture in history). Five years later, in what was billed as a bid to bolster Canadian Nationalism, Suncor, the Tarsands behemoth, sucked up Petro-Canada in a merger that saw share prices rise once again, a reoccurring event after the public divesture of the remaining 45 million plus shares. The 2004 dumping of Petro-Canada marked the end of reasonable policy making in the oil and gas patch and the final victory for an unbridled global corporate free-for-all.
Under the NEP of old, foreign operators such as CNOOC would not be anywhere near the Tar Sands control-and-command centre, let alone slowly becoming a dominant player. Instead, they would have a place in developing the resource and exporting it but that would come at a significant cost in the form of export taxes going directly to Ottawa, something domestic companies could avoid. Moreover, had we still run with NEP-style policies, domestic prices would be capped and Canadians would enjoy both a secured supply into the future, eastward flowing supply lines (limiting our reliance on imports) and affordable petroleum products, while at the same time encouraging wholly owned and private Canadian companies to be at the very center of the growing industry, with the resulting fiscal rewards remaining within our borders and in the pockets of Canadians.
It is not difficult to comprehend the stark contrasts between the two approaches and why the rhetoric resulting from them is drastically different. When governments implement policies such as the NEP of old, people will benefit in the form of stronger public budgets, greater control over the resource and its extraction processes and policies, secure energy supplies into the future and a greater share of the pie, not to mention perks like affordable petroleum by-products and a much reduced price at the pump.
By contrast, the policies being ushered in by EPIC and its compliant politicians result in the mirror opposite. A reduction in our ability to protect the environment and a gutting of processes designed to uphold Canadian values. Exposure to globalized petroleum markets resulting in high prices at home, little control over the development and export of the resources and royalty regimes that cater to multi-national interests as Canadians are left exposed to the whims of market volatility. And, of course, there is the over all socializing of losses, costs and environmental impacts, as well as, a privatization and off-shoring of the wealth that is generated while governments are left to file deficits and increase debt.
These fundamental underpinnings are never raised in the corporate media. Instead we are treated to a now decades-old demonizing of the NEP and similar policies while celebrating a new "National Energy Strategy" which is designed to fleece Canadians as illustrated above. Our mainstream media and politicians are only too happy to dish up an array of ridiculous rhetoric which amounts to hollow grandstanding and politicking while avoiding the real issues Canadians care about, all the while paving the way for the aggressive globalization of the agenda.
With these fundamental points established, I will continue explore the details of the new National Energy Strategy offered up by EPIC and dutifully carried out by Canadian politicians on behalf of the corporations interested in transitioning Canada into an Energy Superpower in the remaining two pieces of this three-part series.
It's time Canadians and in particular British Columbians prepare for a crude awakening.
In a recent poll exclusive to the Globe and Mail, Canada's most prominent and respected newspaper of record, these stunning results were reported in their online edition:
The online survey of 804 adults found the recent pipeline discussion had no immediate effect on the political landscape. Of those polled, 25 per cent said the economy was the most critical issue, while 19 per cent said health care. Twelve per cent chose leadership.
Energy – which scored 1 per cent in an Angus Reid poll in early July – remained at that figure, tied with aboriginal affairs and daycare. “Other” scored 4 per cent. (emphasis added)
At 4%, "Other" issues inconceivably scored 400% higher than Energy issues in terms of priorities for British Columbians.
This is not just some freak accident either, as the same result has been registered in two separate polls this summer. Energy issues registered at 1% before Christy's EPIC roll-out as newly minted champion of British Columbia, with her pathetic and duplicitous BC First campaign, and then once again precisely at 1% immediately thereafter. (Note that the title of Christy's Putting BC First campaign "coincidentally" lifts the name of the BC First independent MLA initiative)
While it is no surprise that Christy's hollow mid-summer stunt has reaped little political benefit for her doomed government, it is incomprehensible that energy issues do not register on the radar screen of British Columbian voters, when in fact they are at the very epicenter of contemporary politics in Canada. It is quite possible people in British Columbia are under the misconception that Alberta is the entire Oil and Gas story, but they would be sorely mistaken, as BC is a huge player and no other jurisdiction besides Alberta has more skin in the game.
The traditional concerns with the economy and healthcare register as top priorities, but it would seem there is a deep disconnect prevalent in these numbers which suggest British Columbians do not fully comprehend the importance of energy issues and there impact on things like the economy and healthcare. In fact, all of the issues registered as concerns in this poll, including leadership, aboriginal affairs and even daycare, are almost entirely dependent on how we manage the energy portfolio in this country and it is time we give our collective head a shake and get with the program.
These polls illustrate that average Canadians do not fully appreciate what is involved and what is at stake. It is barely ever reported in this manner, but Oil and Gas is a multi-trillion dollar resource - the Tar Sands alone is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It is what is responsible for propelling Harper into power and it dominates the entire political and policy agenda of his government, not simply on the domestic front, but also in terms of foreign policy, as the Oil and Gas agenda has reshaped our role in the international community just as drastically as it has altered the very fabric of the country. It has budget ramifications that dwarf any other single contributing factor, is the single most heavily subsidized undertaking in the country, and it reaches into the pockets of each and everyone on of us and those of our children.
At no other time have our politicians been so utterly irresponsible in terms of their most fundamental purpose. Representing the citizens of this great country while protecting and forwarding what is in our best interest is the most basic function of a politician in a representative democracy such as ours and the current crop has failed in EPIC proportions. That a mere 1% of British Columbians believe "energy" is a priority reflects the fact that we have been given the old mushroom treatment - left in the dark and fed a lot of a manure - for if our politicians had properly communicated the importance of what we face at this time and with these issues it would undoubtedly be on top of everyone's agenda. This is one instance where we cannot simply point the finger at the media - we must take a long hard look at our entire system in light of such an EPIC fail in terms of having the tools required to properly manage ourselves as citizens, our province and the most pivotal agenda we have ever experienced as a country.
When I sat down to carry out the research for a detailed piece about Canada's EPIC "National Energy Strategy" - my fifth installment for the Common Sense Canadian on Energy Issues in British Columbia - I came across this stunning Globe and Mail story with their most recent poll. I will carry on with my original intention of detailing the all-encompassing, far reaching, essential aspects of the energy strategy and its implications for us all, however that will now have to wait for my sixth installment.
For now I will leave you with this brief synopsis of just a few of the main points underscoring the depth and breadth of these vital energy issues currently reshaping our country and province:
Canada's largest Tar Sands operator Suncor amongst other Canadian energy interests - most notably SNC Lavalin - were the major benefactors in the Libyan "humanitarian mission." Canadian taxpayers, on the other hand, were handed the near-million dollar bill for the celebration upon the return of our service people.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally massive escalation in public debt, as Harper filed the largest deficit in history the same year Tar Sands production hit its peak.
It is very possible you may have missed it, what with the it being mid-summer and with the grand spectacle of the Olympics - not to mention Clark's BC First campaign - but our Finance minister Kevin Falcon released a quiet little update stating that, whoops, he was wrong and in fact The B.C. Government posted a deficit of $1.84 billion last year, higher than the $925 million originally communicated, doubling the most recent deficit numbers this government filed, which has contributed to the stunning $24 Billion in total debt the Liberals project they will have shoveled onto our backs during their time in office by by this budget's end. This comes on top of an additional $50-plus Billionof other hidden liabilities, slammed by BC's Auditor General.
This despite record-breaking activity in the natural gas sector and coming on the heels of the 200 million dollar "dent" in the budgetFalcon reported a mere three weeks earlier as a result of a dip in natural gas prices, underscoring how vulnerable the Liberal royalty regime leaves us to the whims of the "energy" market.
As you can see, Energy Issues are pivotal to British Columbians and therefore should be pivotal to the success of our politicians. We must not only ensure that British Columbians fully appreciate the importance of the oil and gas agenda, but also understand the importance of the political agenda and its impact on all of us - our future depends on it. I will explore these points in depth along with the National Energy Strategy in my next installment for the Common Sense Canadian.
With human population exploding and demand for resources fast outstripping supply, Dr. Bill Rees, founder of the "eco-footprint" concept, calls for "a new cultural narrative that shifts the values of society from growth (getting bigger) to development (getting better) - from competitive individualism, greed and narrow self-interest toward community, cooperation and our collective interests in repairing the earth for survival."
What do ExxonMobil, Enbridge, Suncor, CP Rail and a Michigan Utility have in common? They've all spilled oil within the past week. This latest round of disasters should give Canadian and US lawmakers pause as they contemplate new pipelines.
An all candidates dialogue on April 3 at the Rio Theatre in Vancouver - featuring representatives from four different political parties and one independent candidate vying for office in the May 14 provincial election - will focus on solutions to climate change.
Anyone who has been following the sorry saga of inexplicable diseases and unusual mortality in BC's wild salmon will not be surprised that the information in Twyla Roscovich's documentary, Salmon Confidential, links the source of this trouble to the salmon farming industry. The surprise, however, is the impact of such information when its complexity is condensed to an intense 70 minutes.
Shell Oil, the first energy company granted coveted Arctic drilling permits by the US Government, is shutting down operations for all of 2013, nearly as quickly as they began. Shell's hand is being forced by the Interior Department, following a scathing report which castigated the company for a series of misadventures in 2012 and early 2013.
A 2-minute video produced by Coastal First Nations - a group representing nine different aboriginal communities on BC's north and central coast - is underscored by the famous Simon and Garfunkel song, "The Sound of Silence." The video, which harkens back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in nearby Alaskan waters, was released around the 24th anniversary of that disaster, in order to voice opposition to the new threat from proposed tanker traffic on BC's coast.
"Cortes is not just a bunch of crazy tree-huggers...We want to log our lands. We want a community forest," one of the subjects of the forthcoming documentary film Heartwood tells Vancouver-based director Daniel Pierce. The film explores the conflict over logging practices on a remote island on BC's south coast, which encapsulates a larger debate currently shaping the future of forestry in the province.
The BC NDP may finally coming to their senses on Site C Dam. On the heels of the release of new documents from BC Hydro in recent weeks, the Official Opposition is calling into question the crown corporation's proposed 1,100 Megawatt hydropower project. And so it should...With BC Hydro in virtual bankruptcy, skyrocketing hydro bills for consumers and businesses, a massive and escalating provincial debt and $80 Billion in additional contractual obligations for which taxpayers are on the hook, pushing ahead with Site C would be the height of fiscal recklessness for BC.
Damien Gillis hosts a google web video chat discussing how indigenous and non-indigenous peoples can work together through the growing Idle No More movement to address historical injustices and build a sustainable energy future. Featuring Squamish and Nisga'a First Nations member and protocol specialist Amanda Nahanee and Ben West, Tar Sands campaigner for ForestEthics.
Watch this 10 min web chat, in which two young, indigenous men discuss their different experiences across the country with the growing Idle No More Movement.
On January 2, 2013, hundreds of First Nations and non-indigenous people converged on Vancouver's Waterfront Station for the latest Idle No More rally. The beating of drums and singing of traditional songs signaled this crowd's solidarity with the movement that is building across the country and beyond its borders.
Watch this presentation by Damien Gillis, co-director of Fractured Land - a documentary in production which examines the industrialization of northern Canada through the eyes of a young indigenous man named Caleb Behn - at the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival.
On Oct 30, the Board of Change hosted a debate in Vancouver on American energy pipeline giant Kinder Morgan's plans to turn Vancouver into a shipping port to access new foreign markets with Alberta Tar Sands bitumen. Hear both sides of the story as representatives of Kinder Morgan and the shipping industry square off against an environmental activist, lawyer and filmmaker over the future of the world's "Greenest City", the province of BC and the planet.
Video from the press conference on the release of the final report from the Cohen Commission into disappearing sockeye. Justice Bruce Cohen highlighted several key recommendations to protect wild salmon from open net pen aquaculture operations, including: removing the promotion of aquaculture from DFO's mandate, prioritizing the health of wild salmon over suitability for aquaculture when siting farms, and even removing some farms if more research into diseases shows they cannot safely coexist with wild fish.
Watch this powerhouse speech from Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union at the Defend Our Coast rally in Victoria explaining why his members are "diametrically opposed" to Tar Sands pipelines to BC's coast.
The Wilderness Committee, Canada's largest member-based environmental organization, honoured hall of fame broadcaster and co-founder of The Common Sense Canadian Rafe Mair with its annual Eugene Rogers Award for outstanding contribution to environmental protection in BC at its AGM this past weekend.
In Part 2 of Rafe Mair's July 2012 interview of economist Erik Andersen, the two cover the plan to build Liquefied Natural Gas plants on BC's west coast - to sell natural gas to Asia - and the proposed Site C Dam. Andersen raises real concerns about investing in new dams and electrical infrastructure to supply industries like mines and LNG.
Part 1 of Rafe Mair's July 2012 interview with economist Andersen, delving deep into BC's troubled energy situation, including Hydro's broken forecasting model, rip-off private power projects, and massive debt and Enron-style accounting practices at our public utility - all driven by the shadowy private American corporation to which we've unwittingly handed over our energy sovereignty.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally 
