22 August 2008
who stands to benefit?
Just as a red robin hopping across RR's snow-covered front lawn signals spring is around the corner, so too a blue-shirted Stephen Harper flying into Liberal-red MP Karen Redman's territory is a good indication that a fall election is upon us.Harper's talk of a fall election was immediately picked up by Ottawa-based political pundit James Travers who had this to say about a snap fall campaign favouring Conservatives:
"The ruling party wants voters to mark their ballots thinking about Stephane Dion and his green shift, not the gathering economic hurricane, a war that current conditions make impossible to successfully prosecute, or how Harper, by then the last Bush Republican left standing, stacks up against the new president.....Harper, a shrewd politician, is again taking advantage of opponents too dumb to spot the shtick." (1)
Ah yes, our current Prime Minister continues to follow U S President George Bush's lead in so many questions of policy. Like Bush, Harper speaks for big oil in Canada.
It might be worthwhile looking at the Bush 8-year record south of the border. Canadian ex-patriate Graydon Carter, current editor of Vanity Fair provides this summary:
“Think about what he’s [i.e. Pres. George Bush] done for Big Oil and his home state. The price of oil is now five times higher than when he took office. Earlier this year, the price of a barrel of crude rose the same amount in a single day as an entire barrel sold for in 1998. Oil companies are swimming in profits–and they still get administration incentives to explore. With the shorelines of America up for “exploitation,” in the words of Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, Big Oil finally got what it had long wanted: a chance to pick low-hanging fruit in its own backyard. Last year Exxon’s reported profits of $50.6 billion were the highest ever for a U. S. corporation, and this year Exxon is on pace to perform even better." (2)
First map shows Alberta/Canada's Fort Mac Murray tar sands development (purple asterisk) and the various oil pipelines supplying 6 U S refineries in 2005 @ cost of 35 million tonnes green house gas emissions -- the most significant contribution this nation makes to the global climate warming crisis. Now it takes a lot of water to run a tar sands operation & it would appear that this nation has an unlimited supply of the wet stuff.
Not so we were told this past week courtesy of a report that the media were able to access. An internal report drafted last December by Environment Canada, A Federal Perspective on Water Quantity Issues, concluded that Canada's stores of fresh water are not as plentiful as once thought.
The report highlights the following:
a. the government currently does not know enough about the country's water to properly manage it.
b. Canada has a fifth of the world's supply of fresh water, but only seven per cent of it is renewable.
c. government data on the country's groundwater reserves is deemed "sparse and often inadequate.''
d. the report forecasts droughts in the Prairies and groundwater shortages in British Columbia and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. A 0.08- to 1.18-metre drop in Great Lakes water levels costs the hydroelectric industry between $240 million and $350 million each year.
e. the report warns that climate change and a growing population will further drain resources.
f. the report warns of a "heightened risk'' of showdowns between the provinces, and between Canada and the States, if the water supply dips too low. (3)
Second map with data updated to 2009 shows Fort Mc Murray Tar Sands still supplying 6 U S refineries @ 50 million tonnes greenhouse gas emissions per year resulting from increased production to meet demand.
Another interesting story involving the tar sands operation appeared this week. A mutated fish was caught downstream from Alberta's oilsands region in Lake Athabaska: 2.5-kilogram goldeye with two mouths, one beneath the other. Aboriginal communities downstream of the oilsands have been concerned about the impact of the oils sands operation on wildlife and and their drinking water. A report on the mutation has been sent to Alberta's Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program. RAMP includes Alberta Environment, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, oilsands corporations and aboriginal groups. (4).......Stop here at the cut line applied to this story by the local rag...and then read on. Further checking revealed that there was more filed by Canadian Press: The Mikesew [First Nation] plan to send the fish to an independent lab for testing... because it doesn't trust the organization to provide an objective assessment. The Mikesew is a member of RAMP, but is planning to withdraw from the group...Why? "It is very heavily represented by industry and government and we feel that it doesn't do any justice as far as accurately representing any data to the community." (5)
Third map fast forwards us to 2015--seven short years from now. Fort McMurray tarsands & the MacKenzie Gas project will now supply 31 U S refineries. More pipelines will be operational: Gateway Pipeline (dual: import condensate/diluent from Russia , export oil to China ) via Prince Rupert/Kitimat deep sea harbours @ cost of 57 to 97 million tonnes greenhouse gas emissions per year. No wonder our current government argued that Kyoto targets were unattainable! Ditto the Harper government's refusal to sign the UN Declaration re aboriginal rights as the Gateway Pipeline project will endanger the water quality in 500-700 streams within aboriginal lands.
Earlier this week a local resident asked, "Why do we keep putting billions of dollars into Afghanistan with more helicopters and more tanks (6)
The answer was not long in coming. Per news report: Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted Wednesday that Canadian troops are not in Afghanistan to guard a new natural gas pipeline being built through the southern part of the country*. ... Mr. MacKay said, “We are not there specifically to protect a pipeline across Afghanistan....If the Taliban are attacking certain places[like pipelines???] in the country or certain projects, then yes we will play a role.”(7)
South of the border, government officials were much more forthcoming. Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, said last year: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." (8) Elsewhere RR finds this statement: "Afghanistan is a key part of the pipeline politics of Central Asia...What we don't know is where does Canada stands in regards to what is called the 'new Great Energy Game.' Does Canada support (U.S. objectives) or what?"(9)
Fourth map takes us to 2030 and adds the Sverdrup Basin in the Arctic ( who owns this basin-- Canada, United States, Russia?) to the supply side. This will require more pipelines such as an Alaskan pipeline through Canadian sovereign territory to carry oil and gas south of the border to 31 U S refineries.-- What's going on here? Will Canada not be adding refineries or even connected to all of that oil and gas flowing south of the border? Will we have to do without? -- New cost in greenhouse gas emissions? 83 to 175 million tonnes greenhouse gas emissions per year.
Does Canada support US objectives? ....just review
1) the four maps in this blog--freely supplied by www.oilsandsTruth.org
2) the Pembina Org. Fact Sheet: Major Fossil Fuel Projects in northern British Columbia which informs us of
- proposed pipelines: 1. Enbridge Gateway oil and condensate pipeline –two separate ones; 2. Pembina pipeline to move condensate to Fort Mc Murray 3. Kinder Morgan Northern Leg Extension to move condensate to Ft. Mc Murray; 4. The Pacific Trails (natural gas) pipeline
- new Liquid Natural Gas storage terminals to be built : 1. Prince Rupert, B. C. ; 2. Kitimat, B. C.
- exploration in three BC basins: Bowser, Nechako, and Queen Charlotte – all three conveniently close to the proposed pipelines.
Who stands to benefit and at what cost to this country?
We need to have frank discussions about the global oil and gas industry and the real final cost to all of us.
Earlier this year, highly respected UK journalist Robert Fisk** visited Canada and observed the following: “The elephant in Canada*** is indeed called Afghanistan. Its army was sent in to do good works after the Taliban meltdown of 2001 and now finds itself suckered....into a major combat role against a Muslim insurgency. Fatalities are now 87 and climbing, but the Canadian military is not exactly winning the war against a massive Taliban resurrection....They [Canadians] are fighting Muslims in a Muslim country and they should get out. Quickly. But Canadians seem happy people, the most polite I’ve ever met on earth. (9)
Ah yes, let the electioneering begin! The best we can hope for is another minority government-- there were some in the past that did great things for this country!
Notes: *The proposed pipeline would run through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Construction is scheduled to start in 2010, one year before Canada's Afghan mission is expected to end. (7) ** Robert Fisk has spent a lifetime covering the middle East and was always a reliable source in understanding the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. *** Wikipedia.org explains: The elephant in the room (also elephant in the living room, elephant in the parlor, elephant in the corner, elephant on the dinner table, elephant in the kitchen, and horse in the corner) is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook, thus people in the room who pretend the elephant isn't there might be
concerning themselves with relatively small and even irrelevant matters compared to the looming big one.The term refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue that is obvious, but which is ignored by a group of people, for example out of embarrassment or taboo.
Sources: (1) JAMES TRAVERS. Harper must call an election now, before the public starts to pay attention, The Record August 21, 2008; (2)Graydon Carter, The Music Dude, editorial Vanity Fair September 2008; (3)Steve Rennie, New report voices warning over fresh water,The Canadian Press August 21, 2008; (4) John Cotter, Mutated fish caught in lake near oilsands, The Canadian Press August 20, 2008; (5)John Cotter, Mutated fish caught in lake downstream of Alberta's oilsands, THE CANADIANPRESS August 19, 2008; (6)Elizabeth Crocker, why are we trying to change Afganistan?, letter to editor The
Record 22 Aug 2008; (7)Not in Afghanistan to guard pipelines: MacKay, The Canadian Press July 30, 2008; (8) John Foster, Asia's new 'great game' is all about pipelines, The Star Aug 20, 2008; (9) Josh Visser, Canadians could be defending Afghan gas pipeline, CTV.ca Jun. 21 2008; (10) Robert Fisk, A Lesson from across the Atlantic, The Independent 12 July 2008.
,
Labels: oil and gas, politics
duty to consult--footnotes
Further clarification re previous post is taken from a paper, The Tenth Anniversary of Delgamuukw v The Queen: Two Legacies, Peter R. Grant. Peter Grant was legal counsel for the Gitxsan at all court levels in Delgamuukw v The Queen [1991]. Herewith, Mr. Grant's explanation: "In Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia, the Court referred to paragraph 168 of Delgamuukw and held:
'The common law duty of consultation as articulated above is always present and always important from the Petitioners' point of view. In this case, there is in addition a statutory obligation to consult.' '
Later in this report, Mr. Grant cites a justice of the B. C. Court of appeal by citing par. 168 from Delgamuukw : 'As Chief Justice Lamer [Supreme Court of Canada justice] pointed out in Delgamuukw, there is always a duty to consult, but what is required by way of consultation will vary with the circumstances.'
It is this duty to consult that lies at the heart of the current delays in building bridges across the Grand River in the Region of Waterloo as the Six Nations have filed a specific claim to the river bed. This duty to consult also applies to the Brantford developments taking place on various properties subject to Six Nations' legal claims. Those impatient with the required legal processes should consider lobbying both their provincial and federal elected representatives to expedite the required land claims processes to achieve certainty for all parties concerned.
'The common law duty of consultation as articulated above is always present and always important from the Petitioners' point of view. In this case, there is in addition a statutory obligation to consult.' '
Later in this report, Mr. Grant cites a justice of the B. C. Court of appeal by citing par. 168 from Delgamuukw : 'As Chief Justice Lamer [Supreme Court of Canada justice] pointed out in Delgamuukw, there is always a duty to consult, but what is required by way of consultation will vary with the circumstances.'
It is this duty to consult that lies at the heart of the current delays in building bridges across the Grand River in the Region of Waterloo as the Six Nations have filed a specific claim to the river bed. This duty to consult also applies to the Brantford developments taking place on various properties subject to Six Nations' legal claims. Those impatient with the required legal processes should consider lobbying both their provincial and federal elected representatives to expedite the required land claims processes to achieve certainty for all parties concerned.
Labels: aboriginal, land claims
18 August 2008
the duty to consult exists & is the rule of law!
RR appended this note to the stormy weather blog: Also pertinent here is a Supreme Court ruling that puts the onus on developers/municipalities who have a "duty to consult" with First Nations regarding development on properties where a land claim has been filed. RR has spent considerable time looking for this particular Supreme Court decision as it underlies many of the complex development-related issues being worked through right now; will post same as soon as she locates it in her growing aboriginal issues binder. ===> herewith the legal rationale as required by the rule of law in Canada as defined for us in our Constitution, the Charter, and Supreme Court rulings, taken verbatim from the following report available online, Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Enbridge Gateway Pipeline on the Carrier Sekani First Nations, May 2006 p. 79.
Rambling Rose is taking excerpts from an already condensed but extremely concise summary of the Supreme Court decisions that have been arrived at over the years. These decisions apply to the situation in Brantford described the previous blog as those developments are taking place on land subject to the claims negotiation process.
1. Because of the prior occupation of Canada by the aboriginal peoples, section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 gives constitutional protection to the ''existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.'
2. Canadian constitutional law recognizes that aboriginal people have rights of ownership over the land and its resources, and that this ownership, or aboriginal title, "encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land....their right to choose to what uses lands can be put....and third. that lands held pursuant to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic component. ===> Supreme Court decision in the case Delgamuukw v British Columbia, 1997.
3. Moreover, the law recognizes that aboriginal rights, such as hunting and fishing, are priority rights, and take precedence over non-aboriginal activities. ====> Supreme Court decision in the case Regina v. Sparrow.
4. The law also protects these rights in the interim of their final resolution....When the Crown knows of the potential existence of an Aboriginal Right and title and contemplates activity that might adversely affect it, the Crown has a duty to consult with the First Nation about these potential impacts, and to accommodate them wherever appropriate.===> RR's source document does not cite the Supreme Court for this statement; however, other sources confirm that was made clear in the 1997 Delgamuukw ruling already cited above.
5. Most importantly this consultation must be meaningful consultation and the honour of the Crown must be engaged at every stage.....meaningful consultation must also entail the possibility that, through consultation, the crown comes to understand that in the circumstances, it cannot let the proposed infringement proceed. The honour of the Crown is not "mere incantation", and the Crown does not have a unilateral right to exploit claimed resources, to deprive aboriginal claimants of the benefit of the claimed resources, nor to proceed with proposed infringements to claimed rights or title.===> Supreme Court decision in case Haida Nation v. British Columbia 2004.
A note about this transcription: all words cited above have been directly copied from the source document which cites key phrases and sentences in the original court documents that have been enclosed within double quotation marks. RR is assuming the bolded portions were bolded by the consulting firm who prepared the study for the Carrier Sekani First Nations.
Who are the Carrier Sekani? They are the original occupants of a vast territory centered around Prince George, British Columbia. Their traditional way of life and their aboriginal rights have now been put in jeopardy** to accommodate the vast Fort Mc Murray oil sands development. Two different pipelines are proposed: the first to carry imported condensate required to dilute the heavy oil extracted from the tar sands & the second to export Fort Mc Murray oil to Asian and US markets. The twin pipelines would be constructed between Edmonton across Carrier Sekani lands to Kitimat, B.C. where a new deep sea tanker harbour is to be built. Thus far, the Carrier Sakani have been successful in stopping the destruction of Amazay (Duncan) Lake as part of the expansion of the BC Kemess mine-- basically that prime salmon fishing lake was to have become a toxic mine tailings dump............** also in jeopardy? that wonderful wild salmon steak that's sizzling on your barbecue as these salmon head up the Fraser and its various tributaries to spawn in Carrier Sekani lands. The Carrier Sekani believe it is their spiritual responsibility to protect the rivers and the fish that swim in them---for all of us, now and in the years to come.
Photo of Jasper, Alberta -- the explorer Simon Fraser was the first to trade with the Carrier Sekani First Nations whom he encounter on the western side of the Rocky Mountains as he followed the Fraser River which bears his name to eventually "discover" the Pacific Ocean. So many of our "discoveries" were provided us courtesy of the aboriginal peoples who guided the European explorers through the intricate system of rivers and lakes that were the first transportation routes across this country. In studying the maps of this area, RR noted that both the Via Rail tracks and the Trans Canada Highway proceed along the banks of the Fraser River into northwestern British Columbia.
Labels: aboriginal, land claims
12 August 2008
boreal lands under pressure
Canada's boreal lands ( the largest untouched forest in the entire country and the third-largest wetland in the world) are experiencing increasing developmental pressures from logging, mining and oil and gas exploration. According to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, "Emerging economies are hungry for resources and their appetites are only going to grow."
According to the executive director of the Quebec chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wildlife Society, "Less than five per cent of our boreal forest is being protected." (1)
As part of his government's strategy to combat climate change, the Premier announced that henceforth one-half of Ontario's boreal forest i.e. 225,000 square kilometres (22.5 million hectares) will be off-limits for development for all time. Already protected: Lands for Life (2.4 million hectares)and Greenbelt Act (728,000 hectares) <===these are not boreal lands but green spaces in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region (Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara region).
To implement this plan, Premier McGuinty provided the following details:
- resource industries will have to work with the government and local First Nations communities to create sustainable development plans for the remaining 226,000 kms (22.6million ha);
- the provincial government will introduce legislation in the fall to reform Ontario's outdated mining act so all future mine developments will need the approval of local First Nations & provide for revenue sharing with them with a cash down payment this fall;
- in the next 10 to 15 years, the province will work with scientists and communities to map out the specific lands that are the most valuable as carbon storehouses and for species protection and which have
the greatest resources and should be developed; in the interim, the following measures are to be undertaken: - the government is relying on prospective developers' respect for Crown and First Nations lands to protect the region's forests and wetlands (===>naive? wishful thinking?) ;
- the government also agreed not to approve new mines or logging until land use plans are complete. (1)
Currently, the Ministry of Natural Resources & the Anishinabek Nation ( i.e. comprises 42 member First Nations) are taking part in Forestry Framework Agreement negotiations to achieve the development of a sustainable, First Nations economy within the larger context of the sustainability of the forest sector ( mill closures, job losses and dwindling profit margins). Grand Council Chief Beaucage brings a different vision to these talks: "These negotiations will look at new ways of doing business. The big-business monopolies of the past need to make way to enable small business and community-based opportunities."
These two initiatives signal a significant shift in the Ontario provincial government's dealings with its aboriginal peoples: "Historically, Ontario's forest policy has been reactionary to First Nations involvement, having to abide by regulatory terms and conditions, Supreme Court decisions on consultation and other factors. A new Forestry Framework Agreement will commit the Government over the long term, to make policy change and take a proactive approach which will strengthen and institutionalize the role of Anishinabek communities in forest management." (2)
Next door, the Quebec government announced that it will protect more than 18,000 square kilometres of forest and wetlands in 23 new conservation areas. Fifteen of 23 new conservation areas are in the boreal zone including 952 square kilometres in the Montagnes Blanches Forest north of Saguenay-Lac St. Jean, one of the last boreal forests to harbour caribou. The move will bring the province closer to its pledge to protect eight per cent of its natural spaces from development by the end of 2008. (1)
Out west in British Columbia, the 550 square kilometres (55,000ha) of the Darkwoods forest in the West Kootenay has been purchased by the Nature Conservancy of Canada, a private non-profit conservation organization ($125 million for the land and an endowment fund & the federal government ($25 million) to protect habitat for the threatened South Selkirk woodland caribou. Until now these lands have been logged by German foresters brought in to selectively harvest trees. (3) & (4)
Farther north, the entire South Nahanni* watershed -- up to 38,000 square kilometres (3.8 million ha) -- continues at risk: there is a growing interest by diamond, uranium, and oil-and-gas developers; also site of a zinc mine with an ore body valued at an estimated $2.5 billion. Although federal Environment Minister John Baird has stated: “ We're committed to a massive expansion of the Nahanni National Park," (5) the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society warns industry could stake claims when the interim ban ends in October unless the federal government permanently grants the reserve protected status. CPAWS advises that two other national parks - the newly created Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve, and the Thaydene
Nene National Park - also need permanent protection.** (6)
"Somewhere, we should know what was nature's way;
we should know what the earth would have been had man not interfered.''
–Rachel Carson, Lost Woods
we should know what the earth would have been had man not interfered.''
–Rachel Carson, Lost Woods
Notes: * Nahanni National Park Reserve was designated world heritage site by The United Nations in 1978: ** Per Washington Post article: " The move will put some limits on the surge of mining claims being staked in northwestern Canada, an area of lore and legendary tales from the great gold rushes of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Since diamonds were discovered in the Northwest Territories in 1991, Canada has become the world's third-largest supplier. The prospect of uranium deposits in the north has brought more speculation."
Photos copyright Sandamara Images 1983-2008 L to R clockwise: 1) Alberta's boreal muskeg forest sits on top of vast oil reserves; 2) Ontario's boreal forest sits on top of the Canadian Shield, a vast storehouse of precious minerals to be mined; 3) aspens whisper in the James Bay Lowlands taiga forest; 4) Algonquin Provincial Park continues to be selectively logged.
Sources: (1) Jordana Huber, Ontario moves to protect boreal forest, The Montreal Gazette 14July 2008; (2) Beaucage submission, Enabling a "new way of doing business", Nation Talk, 30 July 2008; (3) New conservation area will protect woodland caribou, The Associated Press July 25, 2008; (4)Petti Fong, Swath of B.C. forest to become sanctuary, The Star 25 July 2008: (5)Steve Rennie, Wilderness group fears feds not acting to protect rugged park from development, The Canadian Press July 18, 2008; (6)Steve Rennie, Ottawa urged to firm up national park's boundaries to stem resource grab, CANADIAN PRESS July 18, 2008.
Labels: aboriginal, boreal forest, climate change, politics
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
