Something Wicked This Way Comes - ON THE LINE
- Thread starter Englishman
- Start date
tulameentrapper
Member
Sent an email through the link. Got a response back.
Thank you for your interest in the Canada-China Investment Treaty. Although Stephen Harper prefers to keep Canadians in the dark about this Agreement’s grave implications for our sovereignty, security, and democracy, I am hopeful that we can force the issue into daylight. Your letter proves that you recognize the seriousness and urgency of what is about to take place behind our backs.
While the Canada-China Investment Treaty will likely be our most significant treaty since NAFTA, Stephen Harper plans to sign it into law as early as November 2nd, 2012, without any public consultation, any consultation with First Nations, any Parliamentary debate, or even a single vote in the House of Commons. I do not accept such blatant disrespect for either the will of Canadians or for our democratic institutions.
Sadly, in addition to the anti-democratic process to approve this Agreement, it is the actual content of this investment deal with which I am most concerned. For the first time in Canadian history, the Canada-China Investment Treaty will allow investors (including Chinese state-owned enterprises such as CNOOC or Sinopec), to claim damages against the Canadian government in secret, for decisions taken at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level that result in a reduction of their expectation of profits. Even decisions of Canadian courts can give rise to damages.
Realizing what the Conservatives were attempting to do, in secret and without debate, and realizing that we will be bound by this destructive Agreement for up to 31 years once it is ratified, on October 1st, 2012, I made a request in the House of Commons for an Emergency Debate to allow Canada’s democratically elected Members of Parliament to study the implications of the Canada-China Investment Treaty.
Although my request for an Emergency Debate was regrettably denied, we have not given up and are continuing to pursue all available options to stop the treaty’s approval. Given what is at stake, we hope that you will join us.
In addition to the tools found on our Canada-China Investment Treaty campaign site at http://www.greenparty.ca/stop-the-sellout, I urge you to push back against this sell-out of our sovereignty, security, and democracy, and help to educate Canadians by talking to your friends and neighbours, writing letters to the editor in local and national newspapers, calling in to talk radio shows, and filling up the comment boards of news website.
Crucially, this is not a partisan issue, and it is only by coming together to stand up for Canada that we will succeed in stopping this agreement.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Saanich–Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Thank you for your interest in the Canada-China Investment Treaty. Although Stephen Harper prefers to keep Canadians in the dark about this Agreement’s grave implications for our sovereignty, security, and democracy, I am hopeful that we can force the issue into daylight. Your letter proves that you recognize the seriousness and urgency of what is about to take place behind our backs.
While the Canada-China Investment Treaty will likely be our most significant treaty since NAFTA, Stephen Harper plans to sign it into law as early as November 2nd, 2012, without any public consultation, any consultation with First Nations, any Parliamentary debate, or even a single vote in the House of Commons. I do not accept such blatant disrespect for either the will of Canadians or for our democratic institutions.
Sadly, in addition to the anti-democratic process to approve this Agreement, it is the actual content of this investment deal with which I am most concerned. For the first time in Canadian history, the Canada-China Investment Treaty will allow investors (including Chinese state-owned enterprises such as CNOOC or Sinopec), to claim damages against the Canadian government in secret, for decisions taken at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level that result in a reduction of their expectation of profits. Even decisions of Canadian courts can give rise to damages.
Realizing what the Conservatives were attempting to do, in secret and without debate, and realizing that we will be bound by this destructive Agreement for up to 31 years once it is ratified, on October 1st, 2012, I made a request in the House of Commons for an Emergency Debate to allow Canada’s democratically elected Members of Parliament to study the implications of the Canada-China Investment Treaty.
Although my request for an Emergency Debate was regrettably denied, we have not given up and are continuing to pursue all available options to stop the treaty’s approval. Given what is at stake, we hope that you will join us.
In addition to the tools found on our Canada-China Investment Treaty campaign site at http://www.greenparty.ca/stop-the-sellout, I urge you to push back against this sell-out of our sovereignty, security, and democracy, and help to educate Canadians by talking to your friends and neighbours, writing letters to the editor in local and national newspapers, calling in to talk radio shows, and filling up the comment boards of news website.
Crucially, this is not a partisan issue, and it is only by coming together to stand up for Canada that we will succeed in stopping this agreement.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Saanich–Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada
fishnwhenIcan
Well-Known Member
I signed the petition today and got couple of more to do it too. Only took a minute to do. Too many people say "it sucks but we can't do anything about it", but at least do this. Everybody should. Way too important to not have a voice. People need to be made aware of this! MSM won't cover it until its gone viral. http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale?t=te
Last edited by a moderator:
Little Hawk
Active Member
My additon to the poll language:
"I feel Harper is so out of touch with the concept of what PUBLIC SERVICE truly means, that he is a genuine threat to all Canadians that needs to be dealt with by any and all means available to us in our free and democratic country!
From a Westerner's perspective, his name will now TOP THE LIST (supplanting Mulroney) as Canada's WORST PM!"
"I feel Harper is so out of touch with the concept of what PUBLIC SERVICE truly means, that he is a genuine threat to all Canadians that needs to be dealt with by any and all means available to us in our free and democratic country!
From a Westerner's perspective, his name will now TOP THE LIST (supplanting Mulroney) as Canada's WORST PM!"
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Anti-pipeline Demo Today
Well I was in attendance at the demo today and it was great to see so many people out considering it was a working Monday. At least 3-4 thousand people I would say, so we could get triple that number on a week-end.
It was really enlightening to see such abroad coalition of opponents in one place. There were speakers from more than half a dozen First Nations. The NDP critic for Science and technology spoke and several NDP MLA’s were on the podium with him. Elizabeth May spoke up load and clear, especially about the FIPA bill which would transfer all Canadian environmental law making powers to China, since they can then hold us ransom for anything we chose to do.
Several Union and Labour leaders spoke as well, including the union representing pulp and paper workers, which has members who work in the oil sands and the BC Teachers Federation.
All in all, the “Evil Empire” of oil oligarchs run by Harper has brought about a broad coalition of allies, some of whom might not normally always be on the same side. If that is not a demonstration of the complete insanity of this project, nothing else will.
Based on what I heard today, Christy Clarke is toast. The NDP will win the next BC election because she is still up for “selling’ the BC coast, if the bid conditions are right. Like the story of Faust she would sell the soul of BC for the right price. What an unprincipled and money grasping disgrace she is!!
Well I was in attendance at the demo today and it was great to see so many people out considering it was a working Monday. At least 3-4 thousand people I would say, so we could get triple that number on a week-end.
It was really enlightening to see such abroad coalition of opponents in one place. There were speakers from more than half a dozen First Nations. The NDP critic for Science and technology spoke and several NDP MLA’s were on the podium with him. Elizabeth May spoke up load and clear, especially about the FIPA bill which would transfer all Canadian environmental law making powers to China, since they can then hold us ransom for anything we chose to do.
Several Union and Labour leaders spoke as well, including the union representing pulp and paper workers, which has members who work in the oil sands and the BC Teachers Federation.
All in all, the “Evil Empire” of oil oligarchs run by Harper has brought about a broad coalition of allies, some of whom might not normally always be on the same side. If that is not a demonstration of the complete insanity of this project, nothing else will.
Based on what I heard today, Christy Clarke is toast. The NDP will win the next BC election because she is still up for “selling’ the BC coast, if the bid conditions are right. Like the story of Faust she would sell the soul of BC for the right price. What an unprincipled and money grasping disgrace she is!!
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/En...ial+treatment+from+federal/7526769/story.html
Having been caught out, Acting Fisheries Minister Gail Shea says that you should believe her not your own lying eyes. What you see was not really this governments plan to assist Enbridge at the highest level through some pesky environmental fisheries problems.
Good thing it is all just a little mistake because it would not look good given the recent admonishment that Judge Cohen gave this Ministry for being in a conflict of interest in being both charged to protect fish and promote Industry (Fish Farms).
Having been caught out, Acting Fisheries Minister Gail Shea says that you should believe her not your own lying eyes. What you see was not really this governments plan to assist Enbridge at the highest level through some pesky environmental fisheries problems.
Good thing it is all just a little mistake because it would not look good given the recent admonishment that Judge Cohen gave this Ministry for being in a conflict of interest in being both charged to protect fish and promote Industry (Fish Farms).
tincan
Well-Known Member
Here is an informative series of videos about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion plans. Good debate involving two sides.
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. The company wants to build a new 450,000 barrel per day pipeline to Burrard Inlet and increase tanker traffic by 20 fold what it was up until recently. 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. Told here in 5 parts (scroll down).
http://thecanadian.org/item/1808-vi...e-tanker-debate-board-of-change-damien-gillis
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. The company wants to build a new 450,000 barrel per day pipeline to Burrard Inlet and increase tanker traffic by 20 fold what it was up until recently. 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. Told here in 5 parts (scroll down).
http://thecanadian.org/item/1808-vi...e-tanker-debate-board-of-change-damien-gillis
GLG
Well-Known Member
[h=1]Alberta’s oil should flow east, not west[/h]
By Eddie Goldenberg, Calgary Herald
Much of the controversy around the Northern Gateway pipeline is fundamentally about how Alberta oil should move to overseas markets. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rightly championing the urgency of diversifying our oil and gas export markets beyond the United States. But it is unlikely to happen without the federal government playing an active and constructive role to ensure that Alberta oil can reach tidewater.
It might be in the national interest for the federal government to put the economic benefit to Canada of a pipeline through British Columbia ahead of a somewhat more remote risk of a serious crude oil spill if there is no other practical way to move Alberta oil to the sea. Fortunately, there is another way — a route that lies to the east, and the Atlantic.
It avoids any risk of a future environmental disaster on the pristine British Columbia coastline, and also avoids the real possibility of protracted legal actions delaying the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline for so long that potential Asian markets turn elsewhere for supply. It has the added advantage of eliminating the political risk that jeopardizes the possibility of the pipeline through British Columbia.
Over the last year, as the prospects for the Northern Gateway pipeline seem to have grown steadily dimmer, some pipeline companies have begun to express serious interest in the idea of shipping Alberta oil to the East Coast. The idea has also attracted widespread political support from such diverse players as Premier Alison Redford, Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith, federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and New Brunswick Premier David Alward. Former New Brunswick premier and current vice-chairman of the TD Bank, Frank McKenna, calls the idea of a pipeline to the East Coast, “a bold project, national in scope . . . an extraordinary catalyst for economic growth, and a powerful symbol of Canadian unity.”
Building a pipeline to the Atlantic would require converting existing natural gas pipelines or reversing existing crude oil pipelines, with relatively little need for new construction except for a new pipeline from Montreal to Saint John. It would open new markets for Canadian oil in Eastern Canada. It would open the high seas to Alberta oil, not only to service fast-growing new Asian markets by shipping through the Panama Canal, but also to service Europe and the Atlantic coast of the United States.
It would increase the amount of Alberta oil sold at world price, rather than at the current discounted price in the mid-American market. It would also create the opportunity to upgrade eastern Canadian refineries along the way, and particularly the Irving refinery in Saint John to process western Canadian heavy oil and bitumen into refined petroleum products.
The role of the federal government should be to co-ordinate, cajole and facilitate such a national economic project. It is a role that federal governments have performed from the building of the CPR, to the Trans Canada pipeline, to the St. Lawrence Seaway; and with tax incentives in the early days for the Alberta oilsands and Hibernia on the East Coast.
Today, the Harper government is providing financial support for the new international bridge at Windsor, Ont., infrastructure for the Asia Pacific Gateway, and loan guarantees for the hydro project between Labrador and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
An oil pipeline from Alberta to the Atlantic will also be critical to Canada’s economy over at least the next quarter century, and would generate considerable new tax revenue for governments. Opening access to tidewater for Alberta oil, as well as to eastern Canadian refineries, would even justify some limited upfront federal financial assistance, contingent on repayment over the life of the pipeline, if absolutely necessary to get the project underway.
Premier Redford, with her modern, forward-looking, pan-Canadian vision, has taken the lead in promoting a national energy strategy. Such a strategy requires action from the national government to move from just a vision to concrete results. An oil pipeline from Alberta to Eastern Canada that opens new markets in Canada and overseas for Alberta oil, mitigates environmental risk in British Columbia, preserves First Nations salmon rivers, increases the value-added processing of Canadian natural resources, and provides new economic opportunity across the country, would be a major component of such a strategy and a precedent for further co-operative, pan-Canadian energy projects.
Eddie Goldenberg is a partner at Bennett Jones, LLP and chair of the firm’s government affairs and public policy practice. He is a former chief of staff to Jean Chretien when he was prime minister.
By Eddie Goldenberg, Calgary Herald
Much of the controversy around the Northern Gateway pipeline is fundamentally about how Alberta oil should move to overseas markets. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rightly championing the urgency of diversifying our oil and gas export markets beyond the United States. But it is unlikely to happen without the federal government playing an active and constructive role to ensure that Alberta oil can reach tidewater.
It might be in the national interest for the federal government to put the economic benefit to Canada of a pipeline through British Columbia ahead of a somewhat more remote risk of a serious crude oil spill if there is no other practical way to move Alberta oil to the sea. Fortunately, there is another way — a route that lies to the east, and the Atlantic.
It avoids any risk of a future environmental disaster on the pristine British Columbia coastline, and also avoids the real possibility of protracted legal actions delaying the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline for so long that potential Asian markets turn elsewhere for supply. It has the added advantage of eliminating the political risk that jeopardizes the possibility of the pipeline through British Columbia.
Over the last year, as the prospects for the Northern Gateway pipeline seem to have grown steadily dimmer, some pipeline companies have begun to express serious interest in the idea of shipping Alberta oil to the East Coast. The idea has also attracted widespread political support from such diverse players as Premier Alison Redford, Wildrose Party Leader Danielle Smith, federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and New Brunswick Premier David Alward. Former New Brunswick premier and current vice-chairman of the TD Bank, Frank McKenna, calls the idea of a pipeline to the East Coast, “a bold project, national in scope . . . an extraordinary catalyst for economic growth, and a powerful symbol of Canadian unity.”
Building a pipeline to the Atlantic would require converting existing natural gas pipelines or reversing existing crude oil pipelines, with relatively little need for new construction except for a new pipeline from Montreal to Saint John. It would open new markets for Canadian oil in Eastern Canada. It would open the high seas to Alberta oil, not only to service fast-growing new Asian markets by shipping through the Panama Canal, but also to service Europe and the Atlantic coast of the United States.
It would increase the amount of Alberta oil sold at world price, rather than at the current discounted price in the mid-American market. It would also create the opportunity to upgrade eastern Canadian refineries along the way, and particularly the Irving refinery in Saint John to process western Canadian heavy oil and bitumen into refined petroleum products.
The role of the federal government should be to co-ordinate, cajole and facilitate such a national economic project. It is a role that federal governments have performed from the building of the CPR, to the Trans Canada pipeline, to the St. Lawrence Seaway; and with tax incentives in the early days for the Alberta oilsands and Hibernia on the East Coast.
Today, the Harper government is providing financial support for the new international bridge at Windsor, Ont., infrastructure for the Asia Pacific Gateway, and loan guarantees for the hydro project between Labrador and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
An oil pipeline from Alberta to the Atlantic will also be critical to Canada’s economy over at least the next quarter century, and would generate considerable new tax revenue for governments. Opening access to tidewater for Alberta oil, as well as to eastern Canadian refineries, would even justify some limited upfront federal financial assistance, contingent on repayment over the life of the pipeline, if absolutely necessary to get the project underway.
Premier Redford, with her modern, forward-looking, pan-Canadian vision, has taken the lead in promoting a national energy strategy. Such a strategy requires action from the national government to move from just a vision to concrete results. An oil pipeline from Alberta to Eastern Canada that opens new markets in Canada and overseas for Alberta oil, mitigates environmental risk in British Columbia, preserves First Nations salmon rivers, increases the value-added processing of Canadian natural resources, and provides new economic opportunity across the country, would be a major component of such a strategy and a precedent for further co-operative, pan-Canadian energy projects.
Eddie Goldenberg is a partner at Bennett Jones, LLP and chair of the firm’s government affairs and public policy practice. He is a former chief of staff to Jean Chretien when he was prime minister.
tincan
Well-Known Member
The NIMBY in me says this is a better solution. However, no matter what ends up happening with all this tarsands oil I think it needs to be done within the greater context of our harmful reliance on fossil fuels in general. Having a massive amount of oil in our resource bank could very well set up Canada for a long and prosperous future if it is managed and developed sustainably. I am not anti-development of the tarsands but I believe the current and proposed paths are not in Canada's long term interest and disproportionately favour a VERY few handful of people... many of whom are not even Canadian. Our (Canada's) natural resources, whether tarsands, lumber, minerals, etc., should accrue benefit to ALL Canadians and not just a handful of the 'fortunate few' who happen to be directing the policy of our country at the moment.
tincan
Well-Known Member
Another recent article regarding the status of bill C-45 which includes the elimination of the Navigable Waters Act which protected 40,000 lakes and 2.5 million rivers with a "Navigation Protection Act" which would cover a whopping 97 lakes and 62 rivers in Canada - http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=7643858
tincan
Well-Known Member
Canada ranked as worst performer in the developed world on climate change - http://www.vancouverobserver.com/su...orst-performer-developed-world-climate-change
Shocking that so many Canadians (though not most on this forum I would say) still think that Canada is still a good steward of the environment. It's like that saying how it can take a lifetime to gain respect but only takes a minute to lose it. I think we have officially lost it under this current Federal Administration and it would be coming back any time soon.
Shocking that so many Canadians (though not most on this forum I would say) still think that Canada is still a good steward of the environment. It's like that saying how it can take a lifetime to gain respect but only takes a minute to lose it. I think we have officially lost it under this current Federal Administration and it would be coming back any time soon.
Mourning Wood
Member
I saw that all over Social media today. The Conservatives are starting to undermine a lot of different things that traditionally are what make us Canadian. I wonder how many of those people who were on the fence voters that went conservative hoping for this unified government are getting what they hoped for? I also think it goes to show that you should always vote for who you want to see in power not the lesser of two evils.
tincan
Well-Known Member
http://www.straight.com/article-832986/vancouver/omnibus-bill-part-assault-fish-stocks
Otto Langer (ex DFO) talks about the Harper gov't assault on protection of fish habitat... the stuff Cohen strongly suggested we need to be protecting more.
Otto Langer (ex DFO) talks about the Harper gov't assault on protection of fish habitat... the stuff Cohen strongly suggested we need to be protecting more.
tincan
Well-Known Member
Oil and gas development is to be banned from a 400,000-hectare area in northwestern British Columbia known as the Sacred Headwaters, The Globe and Mail has learned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...m-drilling-in-northwestern-bc/article6504385/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...m-drilling-in-northwestern-bc/article6504385/
bull ****, they just want to look green before the upcoming election. then they will come out and support enbridge after there in and let the pipeline go through the whole Skeena watershed just south of the sacred headwaters. what a joke. They shut down fracking in the headwaters (definitely a good idea) but they will support enbridge (far worse then fracking in my opinion).
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Wooly,
You are right on! That is why, we the people of BC must keep the pressure up and the spotlight on, how dangerous and reckless the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is and work to ensure the Liberals do not get in next time around. I don't think many people in BC will be fooled by this, and will see right through this transparent manoeuvre (albeit beneficial in its own right).
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
I hope this is true, but I am afraid there is very big money involved and the lure is very strong. It would be a sad thing to ruin a beautiful back country and coastline just to provide another country with more material to pollute the atmosphere.
Similar threads
