Something Wicked This Way Comes - ON THE LINE

Bumper stickers (2):

1) "DON'T VOTE - IT ONLY ENCOURAGES THEM"

2) "The reason Politicians try so hard to get re-elected
is that they would 'hate' to have to make a living
under the laws they've passed."
 
Another kick in the nutz from our friends in big oil.
[h=1]Flood of Pacific oil exports leaves West Coast refinery thirsty for crude[/h]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/flood-of-pacific-oil-exports-leaves-west-coast-refinery-thirsty-for-crude/article4525395/


A wave of Alberta crude oil is washing up on British Columbia shores, destined for export. But the sole refinery on Canada’s West Coast is finding it so difficult to secure domestic oil that it is considering, instead, buying it from as far away as Saudi Arabia.
Chevron Canada operates a refinery in British Columbia, just a couple of kilometres away from a pipeline that carries crude from Alberta’s surging oil sands to Pacific waters. But as Canada’s energy industry pushes for massive expansion of that pipeline to take more Alberta crude to the West Coast in the chase for higher oil prices abroad, Chevron is scrambling to obtain enough domestic oil to fill its refinery.


It’s a startling illustration of the upheaval sweeping the oil patch – a refinery finds itself competing with global customers for oil that is literally pumped past its back door.
Chevron says it has scoured the world for potential sources of new supply, and has been forced to build new facilities to import oil on trains and trucks to feed its Burnaby refinery. Importing crude from Saudi Arabia – or other places such as Oman, Iraq and Russia – has proven a difficult proposition since it would require major new dock facilities. But by next year, 15 per cent of its oil will come by rail and highway.
Yet the refinery is situated just 2.5 kilometres from the Westridge Terminal, at the terminus of the Kinder Morgan-owned Trans Mountain pipeline, which carries Alberta barrels west and is in the midst of a major effort to more than double its throughput. More than a tanker a week sails a stone’s throw from the refinery, each carrying Canadian oil from that pipeline to customers in California and, occasionally, Asia.
It’s those tankers that are, in many ways, responsible for the problems Chevron is having. The refinery’s scramble for oil is perhaps the single best indication of the tremendous shift under way in the oil patch, as oil companies rapidly move to seize new export markets that pay higher prices for crude.
The Pacific exports promised by new pipelines are no longer hypothetical. They have, quietly, already begun, in a way that is bringing about great change.
“It’s sort of a tip of the iceberg, if you will, for the future,” said Steve Fekete, a managing director with crude consultancy firm IHS Purvin & Gertz.
Those early tanker shipments are part of a process: before Californian or Asian refineries take large volumes of Canadian crude, they start with small amounts, running them through their sophisticated machinery to assess performance. If they are happy, they can then sign on to the much bigger quantities of oil that will move west if pipelines like Northern Gateway, and an expanded Trans Mountain, are built.
It’s clear that process has begun, Mr. Fekete said: “There’s definitely crude oil that’s moving to Asia from B.C. these days.”
The Chevron refinery, then, suddenly finds itself competing for oil with a much broader market. The impact has been dramatic. In November of 2010, the refinery received 51,609 barrels from the pipeline. In the first four months of 2012, it averaged 33,744. During that period, the pipeline was roughly 70 per cent oversubscribed, as huge volumes of oil sought to find their way to Pacific markets.
“Because of the demand on that pipeline from non-B.C. shippers and non-B.C. refiners, the pressure has been on that pipeline,” said Ray Lord, a Chevron spokesman.
To compensate, Chevron has begun finding other ways to get its oil – like through rail – and has also asked the National Energy Board to give it what’s called a “priority destination designation.” It’s the third time it has sought such a designation, which would place it first in line for oil – rather than tussle for pipe space with others – a request it has buttressed by making the case for its importance. The refinery provides work for 460 people and supplies 30 per cent of B.C.’s transportation fuels. Without secure access to oil, it says, that’s all in jeopardy.
“It’s a significant issue for us, probably the largest one facing this refinery,” Mr. Lord said. “The current situation is not sustainable for us and it certainly does threaten the refinery.”
In other words, the race to send Canadian oil to Asian refineries could claim a refinery here in Canada – a possibility that has rankled people like Kennedy Stewart, the Burnaby MP seeking to protect the Chevron refinery.
Still, it may not be entirely that simple. While Chevron is seeking to battle its current uncertainty in obtaining oil – a difficult business environment – some in the oi lpatch say Chevron may also be enlisting the NEB’s help in guaranteeing a supply of cheaper Alberta oil, rather than paying the higher Pacific price crude. Indeed, Chevron has, and has had, the opportunity to guarantee supply: Last year, Kinder Morgan offered 50,000 barrels of day of guaranteed pipeline capacity to the highest bidders. Chevron was not among them. Kinder Morgan also auctions off 25,000 guaranteed barrels per day every month – but again, only to those willing and able to pay.

And at least some in the oil patch seem unhappy to give Chevron priority access. Among the companies involved in the NEB process, which will launch hearings in January, are BP plc, Devon Corp., Nexen Inc., Royal Dutch Shell plc, Suncor Energy Inc. and Imperial Oil Ltd. Their worry: if Chevron gets guaranteed oil, they may be shut out of an increasingly lucrative market.

Imperial, for example, warns that its access to the coast “may be negatively impacted if the [Chevron] application is successful.”
 
As we gather the snapshots together the whole picture comes to light, this seems to be another big shift of money away from the Canadian citizen.

GLG said:
Another kick in the nutz from our friends in big oil.
[h=1]Flood of Pacific oil exports leaves West Coast refinery thirsty for crude[/h]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/flood-of-pacific-oil-exports-leaves-west-coast-refinery-thirsty-for-crude/article4525395/


A wave of Alberta crude oil is washing up on British Columbia shores, destined for export. But the sole refinery on Canada’s West Coast is finding it so difficult to secure domestic oil that it is considering, instead, buying it from as far away as Saudi Arabia.
Chevron Canada operates a refinery in British Columbia, just a couple of kilometres away from a pipeline that carries crude from Alberta’s surging oil sands to Pacific waters. But as Canada’s energy industry pushes for massive expansion of that pipeline to take more Alberta crude to the West Coast in the chase for higher oil prices abroad, Chevron is scrambling to obtain enough domestic oil to fill its refinery.


It’s a startling illustration of the upheaval sweeping the oil patch – a refinery finds itself competing with global customers for oil that is literally pumped past its back door.
Chevron says it has scoured the world for potential sources of new supply, and has been forced to build new facilities to import oil on trains and trucks to feed its Burnaby refinery. Importing crude from Saudi Arabia – or other places such as Oman, Iraq and Russia – has proven a difficult proposition since it would require major new dock facilities. But by next year, 15 per cent of its oil will come by rail and highway.
Yet the refinery is situated just 2.5 kilometres from the Westridge Terminal, at the terminus of the Kinder Morgan-owned Trans Mountain pipeline, which carries Alberta barrels west and is in the midst of a major effort to more than double its throughput. More than a tanker a week sails a stone’s throw from the refinery, each carrying Canadian oil from that pipeline to customers in California and, occasionally, Asia.
It’s those tankers that are, in many ways, responsible for the problems Chevron is having. The refinery’s scramble for oil is perhaps the single best indication of the tremendous shift under way in the oil patch, as oil companies rapidly move to seize new export markets that pay higher prices for crude.
The Pacific exports promised by new pipelines are no longer hypothetical. They have, quietly, already begun, in a way that is bringing about great change.
“It’s sort of a tip of the iceberg, if you will, for the future,” said Steve Fekete, a managing director with crude consultancy firm IHS Purvin & Gertz.
Those early tanker shipments are part of a process: before Californian or Asian refineries take large volumes of Canadian crude, they start with small amounts, running them through their sophisticated machinery to assess performance. If they are happy, they can then sign on to the much bigger quantities of oil that will move west if pipelines like Northern Gateway, and an expanded Trans Mountain, are built.
It’s clear that process has begun, Mr. Fekete said: “There’s definitely crude oil that’s moving to Asia from B.C. these days.”
The Chevron refinery, then, suddenly finds itself competing for oil with a much broader market. The impact has been dramatic. In November of 2010, the refinery received 51,609 barrels from the pipeline. In the first four months of 2012, it averaged 33,744. During that period, the pipeline was roughly 70 per cent oversubscribed, as huge volumes of oil sought to find their way to Pacific markets.
“Because of the demand on that pipeline from non-B.C. shippers and non-B.C. refiners, the pressure has been on that pipeline,” said Ray Lord, a Chevron spokesman.
To compensate, Chevron has begun finding other ways to get its oil – like through rail – and has also asked the National Energy Board to give it what’s called a “priority destination designation.” It’s the third time it has sought such a designation, which would place it first in line for oil – rather than tussle for pipe space with others – a request it has buttressed by making the case for its importance. The refinery provides work for 460 people and supplies 30 per cent of B.C.’s transportation fuels. Without secure access to oil, it says, that’s all in jeopardy.
“It’s a significant issue for us, probably the largest one facing this refinery,” Mr. Lord said. “The current situation is not sustainable for us and it certainly does threaten the refinery.”
In other words, the race to send Canadian oil to Asian refineries could claim a refinery here in Canada – a possibility that has rankled people like Kennedy Stewart, the Burnaby MP seeking to protect the Chevron refinery.
Still, it may not be entirely that simple. While Chevron is seeking to battle its current uncertainty in obtaining oil – a difficult business environment – some in the oi lpatch say Chevron may also be enlisting the NEB’s help in guaranteeing a supply of cheaper Alberta oil, rather than paying the higher Pacific price crude. Indeed, Chevron has, and has had, the opportunity to guarantee supply: Last year, Kinder Morgan offered 50,000 barrels of day of guaranteed pipeline capacity to the highest bidders. Chevron was not among them. Kinder Morgan also auctions off 25,000 guaranteed barrels per day every month – but again, only to those willing and able to pay.

And at least some in the oil patch seem unhappy to give Chevron priority access. Among the companies involved in the NEB process, which will launch hearings in January, are BP plc, Devon Corp., Nexen Inc., Royal Dutch Shell plc, Suncor Energy Inc. and Imperial Oil Ltd. Their worry: if Chevron gets guaranteed oil, they may be shut out of an increasingly lucrative market.

Imperial, for example, warns that its access to the coast “may be negatively impacted if the [Chevron] application is successful.”
Click to expand...
 
Time to contact your local politicians!!

Guys,

Got this e-mail from the Dogwood Initiative.

"Hi

Great news! You can help make history when local governments from across B.C. come together in Victoria in two weeks.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities is voting for a third straight year on a resolution related to oil pipeline and tanker proposals.

And this year’s resolution takes the cake.

Sponsored by the municipality of Saanich, Resolution A8 recognizes that:

“A crude oil spill would have devastating and long lasting effects on British Columbia’s unique and diverse coast, which provides critical marine habitat and marine resources that sustain the social, cultural, environmental and economic health of coastal and First Nations communities”.

It calls on the Union of B.C. Municipalities to:

“Oppose projects that would lead to the expansion of oil tanker traffic through B.C.’s coastal waters…and urge the Premier of British Columbia, the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the Legislative Assembly to use whatever legislative and administrative means that are available to stop [this] expansion of oil tanker traffic.”

Wow, right?

This would be the strongest statement in defence of our coast ever passed collectively by B.C.’s local governments. It would signal opposition not only to Enbridge and Kinder Morgan's proposals, but any other project folks in the oil patch can dream up to bring more crude oil tankers through B.C. waters.

You can help pass this motion.

Ask your Mayor and councillors to support Resolution A8.

Please don't demand, just say "It would be awesome if you did this." The more love and support our local politicians receive to support this resolution the higher the chance it will actually pass.

That's it. One important step and you help make history.

For the coast,

Eric, Emma, Celine and Karl"

So, for those of you on board with this, lets all contact our local politicians to express support for this resolution ASAP!!:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tulameentrapper said:
Sent an email. I live in Poco. Heard back within an hour from Councillor Darrell Penner. He thanked me for my email and stated that he supports the resolution and will be voting that way.
Click to expand...

Good news TT. I am impressed with the responsiveness of your Councillor. So far I have had just an autoreply "thank you" from our mayor. Can't think Sooke politicians would be anything but against increased tanker traffic since we are right on "ground zero" of any big Strait of JDF spill. But with politicians, anything is possible....:confused:
 
Nechako white sturgeon. Juvenile shown here.
Photograph by: .. , Wikipedia commons
VANCOUVER - One of the most powerful foes of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline through northern British Columbia is not a lawyer or a conservation group or any of the many First Nations who have lined up against the project.
It's a very large, very, very old fish.
The Nechako white sturgeon is listed as an endangered species under the federal Species At Risk Act, a designation which is supposed to legally protect the sturgeon's habitat so the species can recover.
The pipeline is planned to cross the Stewart and Endako rivers, where the highly imperilled species — there are estimated to be only 335 left — live.
But the recovery plan for the distinct sturgeon species has languished for seven years in draft form, never officially published and, therefore, never offering that protection. That recovery plan was due on Aug. 15, 2009.
"That (plan) creates an obligation on the government to ensure that the critical habitat of the white sturgeon is legally protected," said Susan Pinkus, a biologist for EcoJustice, one of a coalition of conservation groups who will announce today they will sue Ottawa to force it to enforce its own legislation on the proposed pipeline route.
"This is a population that (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) has assessed as being able to tolerate no additional harm, for obvious reasons. These guys are just barely hanging on."
Exposing this species on the brink to potentially catastrophic disruption puts it in jeopardy, she said.
"I can see how this would be controversial and perhaps uncomfortable, but I also think that this is why the Species at Risk Act exists," Pinkus said.
The sturgeon is just one of several endangered or threatened species along the proposed route of the twin pipelines that would carry bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the B.C. coast.
The status of the sturgeon and Pacific humpback whales are mentioned repeatedly in countless documents obtained by The Canadian Press through Access to Information legislation or found among the thousands filed with the joint review panel conducting an environmental assessment of the project.
"Under SARA, all harm, harassment or killing of individuals from a species listed as endangered or threatened is prohibited," said a Fisheries and Oceans memorandum on the project.
Once a species is listed, the department must develop a recovery strategy and action plan, which identifies and legally protects critical habitat from destruction, the 2011 document noted.
"The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may only enter into an agreement or issue a permit authorizing a party to engage in activities affecting a listed wildlife species under SARA section 73 if pre-conditions are met. In particular, the harm to individuals associated with the activity cannot jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species."
The document, a memorandum submitted to the regional director general, noted several species of concern along the proposed pipeline route.
Various populations of eulachon, a small smelt-like fish, are considered endangered or threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and are under consideration for listing under SARA. The same applies to quillback rockfish and yellowmouth rockfish, and northern abalone are listed as threatened under SARA.
The conservation groups pursuing court action over the pipeline proposal note that the marbled murrelet, a bird listed as threatened under SARA, and the southern mountain caribou, considered threatened, also live along the route.
Pinkus has particular concern for the humpback whale.
"If you superimpose the draft humpback whale critical habitat that DFO has identified, and the tanker route, you'll be horrified. It goes straight through it," she said.
Commercial whaling, overfishing of their prey, entanglement in fishing nets, noise and chemical pollution, as well as habitat destruction have led to their threatened status, says the SARA listing.
"A problem that has arisen in recent years is collisions of whales with ships. As ships get bigger and faster, it becomes harder for the whales to get out of the way. Many shipping lanes cross migration and feeding areas, making the risk of collision more likely," says the SARA listing.
But like the white sturgeon, the deadline for a recovery plan has come and gone with no plan in sight. A draft plan has languished for more than two years.
The Fisheries documents submitted to the environmental assessment panel note that Northern Gateway proposed a trenchless crossing as the primary construction method on the Endako River, where the white sturgeon are present, and impact would be negligible.
"However, there is some risk that a trenchless crossing may not be feasible because of the site conditions," the Fisheries documents say, adding that the contingency plan has an elevated risk of adverse impacts.
"It will be important for the proponent to ensure mitigation measures are sufficient and are implemented to avoid the risk of impacts to sturgeon."
In the end, the department said the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through mitigation and compensation measures.
But critics say that if Ottawa hadn't broken its own laws around species at risk already, that would not be the case.
Earlier this month, Environment Minister Peter Kent told The Canadian Press that the Conservatives government is looking at an overhaul of the species at risk law enacted in 2002 by a Liberal government.
Kent said he wants to make the Species At Risk Act more efficient.
"There are improvements to be made," Kent said. "Sooner rather than later we need to address changes to the Species at Risk Act to be more effective."
The Conservatives made dramatic changes earlier this year to other environmental laws and the Fisheries Act — changes decried by conservation groups for putting resource development ahead of the environment.
Cory Williamson, a member of the Nechako White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative, said there are only about 335 white sturgeon left.
"The population is in continual decline," he said.
The remaining fish are 40 to 70 years old. They spawn but the eggs and larvae don't survive.
The prehistoric fish, which can grow up to six metres in length and weigh as much as 500 kilograms, has changed little since dinosaurs roamed the Earth but teeters on the brink of extirpation, he said.
"We have a recovery plan that's been in draft format for a number of years now," he said. "There are, I believe, legal prohibitions on harm to individual sturgeon, but because the recovery plan hasn't been formally published yet, there is no legal protection for habitat."
Brian Frenkel, the chairman of the community working group for the Nechako White Sturgeon recovery initiative, said there are several pipelines proposed for the area.
For five years, his group has been looking for $3- to $4 million to build and operate a sturgeon hatchery.
"The federal government has done a good job of creating a Species At Risk Act, and our group fought hard to put sturgeon on there," Frenkel said.
Since then, Ottawa has "fallen flat on their face on that."
"We're so far from Ottawa," Frenkel said. "Out of sight, out of mind."
© Copyright (c)

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...ine+proposal/7302142/story.html#ixzz27b7e8JjE
 
This link is a little old but it illustrates quite clearly why Bill C38 was brought in. The old habitat alteration wording gave biologists and others too many defensive weapons against this monstrous project.....so Harper changed the rules and pulled the ground from under the concerned opponents and critics....

http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...nt+Enbridge+disagreed+over/6783804/story.html

However, a coalition of environmental groups is now sueing the Federal Government under the species at risk act. The good fight continues.....

http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...e+threat+pipeline+proposal/7302142/story.html
 
Relevant,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/you-heard-it-here-northern-gateways-dead/article4589760/





The Northern Gateway pipeline that Enbridge proposes to build from Alberta’s bitumen oil to the Pacific coast of British Columbia is, for all intents and purposes, dead.

Yes, regulatory hearings before the National Energy Board will continue until the NEB approves the project. And yes, Enbridge will keep pushing for it. And yes, the Harper government, which is so publicly committed to the project, will continue to extol its virtues as part of the need to get Canadian resources to Asia.

More Related to this Story
•
Northern Gateway Enbridge says B.C. declined offer to discuss pipeline benefits

•
TransCanada eyes an east coast export alternative

•
Trudeau tells Calgary he will not pit East vs. West



Energy

Video: Enbridge's pipeline challenges


Energy

Video: Prominent Canadians lend voice to anti-Northern Gateway campaign


Editorial cartoons

Brought to you by the letter ‘H’

But the project is dead. It has too many obstacles now, and there’ll be more in the future.

To survive, the Gateway pipeline would have to push past the growing opposition of British Columbians in general, the opposition of the current Liberal provincial government and the NDP government likely to replace it next year, the unanimous opposition of environmentalists, considerable opposition from at least some of the aboriginal groups along the route and, if all this were not enough, the likelihood of prolonged court battles.

What’s not standing in the way are U.S. environmentalists, whom the Harper government accused of being the principal reasons for the project’s problems. This wild statement was, then as now, completely at variance with reality, since British Columbians are hardly to be led around by their collective nose by a handful of folks from south of the border. To suggest otherwise is to insult their intelligence.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark just spent two days in Alberta, including a meeting with Alberta Premier Alison Redford that both described as frosty. Ms. Clark said she was in Alberta to inform Albertans of B.C.’s concerns and demands; but given a looming political debacle at home, she was really speaking to her home audience.

It was the height of rudeness to ask for a meeting, as Ms. Clark did, then offer nothing and not even pretend to be civil, as if the most urgent thing on her mind was telling the B.C. media how unproductive had been the meeting she sought.

But good manners flee, even between premiers of contiguous provinces, when one of them – Ms. Clark – is fighting for her political life and has come to understand how unpopular Gateway has become in British Columbia. Indeed, it would seem that the more British Columbians know about the project, the less they like it, starting with the reasonable question: Why should B.C. take most of the environmental risks for so little actual gain?

Ms. Clark, reading the political winds, has become testy about Gateway; her likely successor, NDP Leader Adrian Dix, is adamantly opposed. As are, of course, the federal New Democrats. The Harper Conservatives can steamroller the federal NDP in Parliament, but they can’t so easily steamroller the B.C. government and public opinion.

Aboriginals are divided, of course, but those who’re opposed can make life very difficult for Enbridge even if the NEB approves the pipeline. In fact, some aboriginal groups would take a green light to Gateway as a green light to appeal to the courts, arguing that their constitutional right to be consulted on lands they claim to be theirs was not respected, a precept articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the very least, this litigation would stretch on for years.

Enbridge has not helped itself in the court of public opinion with embarrassing pipeline spills. These might be one-off affairs, explainable on technical grounds, but they looked bad and, politically, smelled worse.

The diminished prospects for Gateway make it somewhat more attractive building further pipeline capacity down the Fraser River to the Lower Mainland, where the Kinder Morgan-owned Trans Mountain pipeline already runs. The prospect of more ships in Vancouver’s harbour is among the obstacles for this project.

Trains? They don’t carry the capacity of pipelines. But they arouse less opposition, so that option has a better chance politically than a pipeline for bitumen to the Pacific. Shipping more oil to Eastern Canada seems to be the easiest option politically of all.

But bitumen oil to Asia through northern B.C. just ain’t going to happen.
 
Thx Lorne. I believe the Globe and Mail will prove to be right. The people of BC will never allow this horrendous pipeline to be built.
However, it ain't over till the formal announcment is made, so I for one, will keep writing letters, signing petitions and "bugging" my MLA. Then I will celebrate a decision for sanity and for BC!!
 
Answers murky at Enbridge hearing

This is a worthwhile read, illuminating many of the reasons why we can't trust these bandits...

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Answers+murky+Enbridge+hearing/7388092/story.html

Some of the memorable distortions:

....Take this one from Barry Callele, described as the accident-prone company's director of pipeline-control systems and leak-detection. He was asked by a B.C. government lawyer at a Prince George hearing last week if the ability to detect leaks won't be known until the pipeline is built. "I think we know what we know today," Callele replied. What? Is Enbridge's strategy being masterminded by Donald Rumsfeld, he of the known knowns and unknown unknowns?

....As Enbridge President Callele was rudely reminded at the hearing, Enbridge pipelines have sprung 31 "leaks" in the U.S. since 2002. Six of the 10 largest were not detected by the company's leak-detection system. He says there is always "...some element of risk."

...Enbridge executive Janet Holder declared last week in Vancouver that Enbridge's responsibility for anything ends at the end of the pipe. She said response to a tanker accident is "well taken care of."

...Enbridge knew very well that the stuff that comes from the Alberta oil-sands isn't like conventional oil. That's obviously why Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel denied initially that it was oil-sands oil that was fouling the Kalamazoo. A month later, caught out, he said: "I haven't said it's not tarsand oil. What I indicated is that it was not what we have traditionally referred to as tarsand oil."

...It's obfuscation like that - like the doctored map Enbridge produced of a Douglas Channel cleared of islands for future supertankers - that has convinced so many of us that we're dealing with a pack of rogues who take us for a bunch of rubes.


(c) The Victoria Times Colonist


Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/busine...idge+hearing/7388092/story.html#ixzz29IJ4EwiM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, that is a pretty hard hitting and damning article Foxsea. It is in the TC business section too, so that is really great. The momentum to defeat this is really on a roll now :). See you at the rally at the Legislature on the 22nd!! http://defendourcoast.ca/
 
Yes, the above is another nasty, cynical manoeuvre by Harper to change the rules in favour of any and every development where Chinese investment is concerned. Basically no level of government can impose any law, even public health or environmental ones, if it will affect the future profits of the Chinese. Massive compensation will become due once determined by a secret tribunal.
So basically we have to pay the Chinese in order to govern and manage the country how we want, for the next 31 years. It is tyrannical and unprecedented and it becomes law on the 31st October without any public consultation or debate in parliament.
You can sign an on-line petition against the sell out of Canadian sovereignty here!
http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale?t=te
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sharphooks
Hating on Alaskans?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Gong Show
Gong Show
Adler
2024-25 DFO proposal and survey on salmon measures
Replies
54
Views
7K
wildmanyeah
W
IronNoggin
The Way DFO Plays
Replies
6
Views
1K
fish brain
fish brain
OldBlackDog
About that Selective Fishery, by Bob Hooton
Replies
9
Views
921
wildmanyeah
W
IronNoggin
CPAWS
Replies
24
Views
1K
Hardy Guy
H
Back
Top