Questions Remain in HD Mining Case

Questions Remain in HD Mining Case
Key evidence was struck from the record in federal court, say unions.

‪Chinagate: Who's Minding the Resource Store?‬


Asia tension could lead to conflict—DFA chief

China seals first free-trade deal with Switzerland

China should not be a "free rider" in global trade, the EU's trade commissioner has warned.

Report Hits Out At China's Black Jails, Self-Immolations

Activists Warned Off Tiananmen Memorial March

Toxic Rice Highlights China's Lack of Openness on Pollution

Kinder Morgan takes next step in its Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion plan

Bitumen Doesn't Float

Activists demand public hearings for coal export project

USDA Stands Firm on Consumer Meat Labels, but Will the WTO Continue its Anti-Consumer Legacy and Authorize Trade Sanctions?

RECAP FROM LIMA: Experts, Activists, and Peruvian Members of Congress Rally Against the TPP

London on edge and police fill the street as public beheading stokes ethnic tensions

Stockholm calmer but violence spreads outside Swedish capital

Accused in alleged terror plot seeks lawyer who will use Qu'ran as 'reference'

Canadian drug policy experts recommend decriminalizing all drugs

Russia’s top military officer skeptical about further nuclear arms cuts

Police agency Interpol quashes Russian bid to hunt down UK investor

4 reasons Why Christy Clark must go

1) Christy Clark Mismanages the Economy – Increasing debt, deficits – Selling off public property – Creating budgetary dependency on raw resource extraction while spending away the proceeds when they should be saved and invested for future generations.

If the resources of a nation are to be used, they should increase the wealth of the nation. Development can be a responsible and cautious conversion of underground wealth to above ground wealth. Underground wealth should be used to supply domestic industries, entered into a strategic stockpile, or saved and invested in a sovereign wealth fund. In this way the wealth of the nation increases over time. However the current ruling neo-liberal school of thought forces us to shovel as much wealth out the door as soon as possible at the lowest prices. Any revenues generated are spent on current consumption/ operating costs. Neo-liberal economic theory puts the interests of multinational corporate profits over the objective of national wealth/ development/ power. The Communist Chinese dictatorship is taking advantage of the failed economic ideology of Western Neo-liberalism in order to corrupt and interfere in our internal affairs. Any political party that gives away our sovereignty to foreign dictators is a puppet of foreign powers and a danger to the peace. The two headed liberal/conservative movement are the same beast. In the interest of national security, all liberal/conservative candidates should be booted from office as soon as possible. We the people demand a world of non-violence and compassion, and we demand that any trade, investment, or business operations be conducted according to the highest of human rights standards. Hight standards, whereby business, government, and society in general is a place where people love one another, and whereby truth and respect takes precedence over greed and self interest.

Why Isn't Christy Clark More Popular?
“BC Liberals are on their way to doubling the provincial debt since 2001, from $33.8 billion to $66.3 billion in 2015!”

The Era of Tax Cut Stupidity that Starved BC

Election year, BC's small projected surplus depends on asset sales and optimism

Selling off property to pay the bills, selling off non-renewable resources for a piece of what they are worth, does that sound like strategic fiscal management to you?

Oil riches wasted discredit the 'Calgary School.' But a proven path to prosperity exists.

“Norway produces roughly the same amount of oil as Alberta, yet this tiny nation has managed to salt away over $600 billion in accumulated oil wealth in a sovereign wealth fund that now amounts to more than one per cent of global equity markets. 

Norway has no public debt, full employment and fully-funded social programs that Canadians would drool over. Norwegians enjoy free university tuition, universal day care and 25 days of paid holidays per year. Per capita spending on healthcare is thirty per cent higher in Norway; funding for arts and culture is more than three times higher than Canada.”

Why can't neo-liberal economics (conservative/liberal) ever balance the budget?
your government pays too much of its road, education, and hospital bills with finite and volatile hydrocarbon revenue.

“ must "redirect the revenues gained from the sale of resources away from the government's budget and toward saving," ”

" "As we noted previously this is the solution to the problem of energy price volatility that has been successfully employed by energy-rich Norway... ”

2) Christy Clark Supports FIPA

Premier Clark Supports Canada-China Trade Deal, Abandons BC's Constitutional Rights

Rafe Mair

1. “It applies to trade agreements between Canada and China and, thanks to the premier, BC as well.
2. It is, like NAFTA, a treaty that for practical reasons, is all but unbreakable for 31 years.
3. It gives China the ability to obtain huge damages if we don’t perform our side of any deal and to sue for them in her own courts
4. This agreement has not been debated in Parliament nor in the Legislature of BC
5. It won’t be debated in Parliament or the BC Legislature because both the Prime Minister and Premier Clark don’t think they need the agreement of our legislative bodies
6. Without any question, this treaty will impact upon the Province of British Columbia and could cost us hundreds of millions of dollars
7. It seriously compromises the constitutional rights BC has under Section 92 of the Constitution Act (1982)”

“We live in a federation where both the federal government and the provinces have legal, inviolable rights. This is the glue that holds the nation together.” 

“On the pipelines/tankers specifically there are a number of areas where BC has the absolute right to make conditions or ban them outright. Premier Clark, in her disastrous statement, has, on the face of it, estopped BC from exercising our rights. “Estopped” means that she has taken a position upon which another has acted and can no longer exercise the rights she signed away.”

“In short, by agreeing to this treaty, she has, for the length of the contract, surrendered our right to exercise our constitutional rights.”

“We have, then, given our constitutional rights away without any consultation with the people who lose these powers. It’s been called “economic treason” and I agree.”

The Rush to Ratify: BC Rejected International Investment Deal in '98 and Should Do So Again

3) Christy Clark Supports Pipelines, Tankers

The Economics of Oil Pipelines and Supertankers

Robyn Allan

“The debate about oil pipelines and supertankers is not about economic benefit stacked against environmental cost to see if the risk is worth it.

That’s a false dichotomy. It’s developed by oil interests to pit ordinary Canadians against ordinary Canadians.”

“ The energy strategy in Canada is about multinational oil companies and national oil companies of foreign governments reaping vast financial gain and market power versus economic and environmental cost for the rest of us.

I am going to discuss the oil industry and how two pipeline projects—Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain twining—fit into the oil sector’s strategy for Canada.

The costs of these pipeline proposals come in many forms.

What are they? Here’s the top 10:

1. Decades of higher oil prices for Canadian consumers and businesses across the country;
2. Lost opportunity to add value, create meaningful jobs and control environmental standards here at home;
3. Hollowing out of the oil sector as raw bitumen exports take precedence over upgrading and refining;
4. Twice the number of pipelines and almost double the tanker traffic to move diluted bitumen as compared to upgraded bitumen;
5. As soon as Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain are approved, more pipeline capacity will be requested;
6. Rapidly rising exchange rates along with rising diluted bitumen oil prices, impacting other sectors of our economy and our ability to export;
7. Continued reliance on foreign, higher priced oil imports through eastern Canada;
8. A growing dependence on foreign condensate imports through western Canada;
9. Crowding out of BC’s legitimate and vibrant economic activity; and
10. Supernatural British Columbia becomes a Supertanker terminal for Alberta. ”

Bitumen’s Deep Discount Deception and Canada’s Pipeline Mania: An Economic and Financial Analysis

“1)Western Canadian unconventional heavy (WCS) and light crude (SCO) oil experienced normal differentials as compared to WTI in 2012.
2)The majority of oil sands supply comes from producers who are also integrated downstream operators and they make up the difference in the second step–the WTI to Brent spread–in their refinery margins.
3)It is effectively Canadian consumers and businesses that are price-gouged at the pumps. We pay petroleum product prices as if all Canadian crude oil was purchased by refineries at Brent prices–as if we imported all our crude oil from foreign markets.
4)The “supply glut” in Cushing, Oklahoma was largely industry induced and much of it was anticipated. It is expected to be sorted out within the next year, or so, as companies solve their technical difficulties with refinery and pipeline capacity expansions. This throughput realignment will occur without approval of the three bitumen export pipelines.”

The day after the release of Bitumen’s Deep Discount Deception, CIBC World Markets released a short report claiming losses from the double discount. I contacted CIBC to request their underlying analysis. Unfortunately CIBC will not be transparent or accountable for their calculations and refused to discuss their figures or the shortcomings in their methodology. I have addressed the recent claims in an article published in the Tyee “Oil Sands Money ‘Left on the Table’ and More Myths”.

Oil Sands 'Money Left on the Table' and More Myths
“Economist Robyn Allan on why Canadian petro fortunes aren't hurt by lack of pipelines.”
“Petro industry's interests aren't Canada's, The 'opportunity loss' myth”

Calgary fundraiser for BC Liberals to support oil sands agenda
" More than 100 business elites are expected to attend a private fundraiser Thursday night for Christy Clark's B.C. Liberals -- in Calgary. "

Canada's Petro Lobbyists Grow Faster than Pipelines
"Oil and pipeline companies, including seven of the world's largest corporations, have intensified their lobbying efforts in Ottawa over the last four years and held 2,733 meetings with public officials."

Rafe Mair: All I Want for Christmas Is a May election that puts in power true defenders of BC's natural bounty.
“To me the dominant issue before all others going into May's provincial election is the environment. Fiscal fudge-ups can be fixed as can most bad policy. But environmental damage -- be it due to fish farms, pipelines, tankers, Site C or loss of agricultural land -- is, to all intents and purposes, permanent.”

---

Opposition Statement on Government support of pipelines:

This isn’t the first time the BC Liberals have failed to act in the public interest. When it came time to stand up for our province in the Enbridge pipeline review process, they passed the buck to Ottawa – over 4000 kilometres away from the people the project will directly affect.

 Only you and your neighbours can truly understand the environmental and economic devastation a major oil spill might bring to your community.

4) Christy Clark backs Temporary Foreign Workers Program, HD Mining

HD misled saying it needed Chinese specialists for 'long wall' mining

" The company said it intended to use the so-called long-wall technique to harvest coal from its Murray River mine and insisted the Chinese workers were needed for their specialties in the use of it."



"But according to documents obtained by the union, HD Mining's application to the B.C. Ministry of Natural Resource Operations in June 2011 shows during a two-year bulk sample collection period the company had no plan to employ the long-wall technique. "

“After winning a court decision to have resumes of 300 Canadians who applied for the positions handed over to them, unions have accused the company of turning down fully qualified Canadians for the jobs.”

“Unions began their fight against the company on the basis that Canadian resources should be used to create jobs for Canadians”

" The case has been an open pit of controversy since it was discovered by the United Steelworkers union the company had listed Mandarin as a language requirement in job advertisements.

Labour groups contested that was done to eliminate Canadian candidates so the company could be granted Labour Market Opinions supporting their case for foreign miners for smaller wages. "

Steelworkers Allege BC Importer of Chinese Miners Tied to Deadly Accidents
“Dehau Mines linked to Shandong energy group, whose subsidiaries had five disasters killing nearly 200 workers”

HD Mining's Biggest Backer Is Mysterious, Say Steelworkers
“It also questions the backgrounds of some of the people involved in the company, such as the company's chief consultant Ye Qing, referring to him as "as high-level an insider as one might hope to become within the Chinese Communist Party."

---

The government is not serving the people, it is time for a replacement. Patriots Vote.

UBC trains Chinese officials how Canada Government works

 
The elite school many Canadians can't afford to go to rolls out the red carpet for Communist party officials to be given a world class education in how to work the Canadian government. Odds are this will be the most under reported story of the year. No major mainstream coverage.

UBC trains Chinese officials how to work Canada Government
" The University of B.C. will soon become a temporary home to about 125 Chinese civil servants looking to learn as much as possible about the Canadian political system and public policy. "

Sauder to train Chinese bureaucrats in public policy
" UBC has finalized a deal for Chinese government officials to come to the university and take summer classes for the next five years. "

China’s stealth wars of acquisition
" Since the Mao Zedong era, China has adhered to ancient theorist Sun Tzu’s advice: “The ability to subdue the enemy without any battle is the ultimate reflection of the most supreme strategy.”

This approach involves taking an adversary by surprise by exploiting its weaknesses and seizing an opportunistic timing, as well as camouflaging offense as defense. As Sun Tzu said, “All warfare is based on deception.” Only when a war by stealth cannot achieve the sought objectives should an overt war be unleashed. "

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting for the right of oil, gas and mining corporations to keep payments to foreign governments secret
Industry lobbies for right to bribe corrupt officials.

Global Civil Society Expresses Rejection of the Report, “The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence”

Our World is Not For Sale
" The “Our World is not for Sale” (OWINFS) network is a loose grouping of organizations, activists and social movements worldwide fighting the current model of corporate globalization embodied in global trading system. OWINFS is committed to a sustainable, socially just, democratic and accountable multilateral trading system. "

This Workers’ Memorial Day, “Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living” 
(Mother Jones, 1925)

SEC commissioner, others call for SEC to protect investors from forced arbitration

Charles Schwab Corporation responds to Public Citizen petition

Digital currency dealers grapple with big banks and murky financial rules


  

Mandarin Need Cited as Feds OK'd 95 Chinese Miners

Mandarin Need Cited as Feds OK'd 95 Chinese Miners

One Brave First Nation Stands up to FIPA

"WE STAND TOGETHER" are First Nations and Canadians supporting each other in a First Nations legal challenge against the Canada China FIPA. Through your donations, we will work to protect the rights of all Canadians.
http://www.westandtogether.ca/

Northern Gateway panel tangled in complex web of aboriginal rights, title

Enbridge cleanup may cost $1-billion, company warns

VIDEO: Vancouver's Dilbit Dilemma
Is Alberta bitumen as safe to transport as any other crude? Watch this.

UN World Water Day: Canada’s Water at Risk
"Since then, the situation has grown worse with the "Conservatives’" aggressive promotion of the extraction industries, leading to the end of credible environmental assessments, the gutting of the Fisheries Act, and the virtual elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (to push through communist pipelines) – which leaves the great majority of our lakes and rivers vulnerable to development."

Federal budget cuts undermine Environment Canada’s mandate to enforce clean air regulations:  emails

Another Alberta Family Flees Oil Sands Pollution

Outrage About Coal Mountaintop Removal in Tennessee By Chinese Company

Google Explains Why The Future Of Energy Is Green

Servers in Canada linked to FinFisher spyware program
"The discovery of FinFisher servers in countries run by authoritarian governments — such as Turkmenistan and Ethiopia — have raised further questions about the company's practices."

How New ACTA Internet Lockdown Measures Are Coming to Canada
"The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), once believed dead, is back from beyond the grave, and could criminalize and otherwise restrict your use of the Internet by overwriting our copyright rules."

Let's come up with a plan to stop international agreements from restricting Internet freedom
"New Internet restrictions are currently being developed through multiple international "trade" agreements that could significantly restrict and potentially even criminalize your everyday use of the Internet. We know from past campaigns that we win when the Internet community reaches out and engages a critical mass of citizens in the cause."

What the media is missing: Government privacy breaches

Electoral fraud in Canada

Pipeline whistleblower receives national award

What's Holding Back High-Tech Oil Sands Cleanups?

Fish Farm Dangers

Less than half of Liberal supporters register to vote for next leader

BC Has Plenty of Room to Raise Taxes

Canada Should Take Note of India’s Freeze on All Investment Protection Agreements

“Canada Should Take Good Note of India’s Freeze on All Investment Protection Agreements”

OTTAWA – With ratification of the Canada-China Investment Treaty still pending, the Green Party of Canada underscores India’s decision to move away from bilateral investment protection agreements and their investor/state dispute system.

After facing the threat of international arbitration from foreign companies, India has ordered in January 2013 a freeze of all bilateral investment protection agreements negotiations until a governmental review is carried out and completed. Although news of India's decision has not been mentioned in the Canadian media, the decision is clearly relevant.

“In November 2012, Prime Minister Harper told me in the House of Commons that the Indian Prime Minister was committed to signing a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Canada. I think Canada should take good note of India’s freeze on all investment protection agreements,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

“The investor/state dispute system contained in investment agreements allows foreign companies to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Special arbitrators would take the decisions; their decision cannot be subject to judicial review. And the arbitrations are to be secret. Even the fact they are happening is to be secret,” said May.

“India is joining nations such as Australia and South Africa in saying ‘no’ to investor/state provisions. It’s time for Canada to also turn the page on this out-of-date and undemocratic international trade model,” said May.

Tightening the grip: muzzling of scientists ramps up in Canada

Elizabeth May

Back in October 2011, I wrote in Island Tides about the muzzling of DFO scientists. The scientist in question, Dr Kristi Miller, had achieved levels of scientific respect as her work on viruses linked to salmon aquaculture operations had been published in the internationally prestigious journal Science. When Science attempted to arrange media interviews with Dr Miller, the Privy Council Office ordered her to refuse.


It seems that the public outcry over that event, and others including ozone scientists at Environment Canada, led the Prime Minister’s Office to decide the contractual arrangements with scientists were too lax. As of February 1 this year, new rules were put in place requiring all scientists working on projects in conjunction with DFO in the Central and Arctic Region to treat all information as proprietary to DFO, and—worse—await departmental approval before submitting research to any scientific journals.


The story was broken by veteran journalist Michael Harris, in the online journal iPolitics. Harris has been one of the few journalists willing to dig into the pervasive repression, slashing of science and rejection of evidence based decision-making in Harper’s Ottawa.


The reaction from DFO was swift. It posted this attack on its website:

‘The iPolitics story by Michael Harris published on February 7th, 2013 is untrue. There have been no changes to the Department’s publication policy.’


Harris recounts that he was stunned. He had verified the change with several scientists, external to DFO. He called Dr Jeff Hutchings at Dalhousie University who re-confirmed the changes. Then Harris received support from an unexpected source—an anonymous DFO scientist posted the email from Michelle Wheatley, the Central and Arctic science director, sent out to detail the new publication policy.


The anonymous scientist wrote, ‘Here is the e-mail I got from my division manager on January 29, 2013: ‘Subject: New Publication Review Committee (PRC) Procedures for C&A Science …’. The email was reproduced in full, and began, ‘This message is regarding the new Publication Review Committee procedures for C&A Science…’


The email noted that the new policy was to take effect on February 1, 2013.
The anonymous scientist concluded: ‘You decide who’s being untruthful.’


A few days after DFO tried to deny that there were any changes, the Vancouver Sun broke the story of a US scientist, doing collaborative work with DFO, who is refusing to sign the new conditions. Calling it a ‘potential muzzle,’ Dr Andreas Muenchow, of the University of Delaware told the Sun, ‘I’m not signing it.’ Muenchow has been working on a project with DFO scientists in the Eastern Arctic since 2003.


In 2003, when the collaborative research project began, there were quite different rules about sharing data: ‘Data and any other project-related information shall be freely available to all Parties to this Agreement and may be used, disseminated or published, at any time.’


Within days of February 1st’s new publication policy, on February 7, came another DFO email to scientists: now they must obtain prior consent before applying for research grants.


You can see where this is going. It is not enough to muzzle scientists like Dr Miller when their research is published. The tightening of control over science must be established far earlier in the process. Stop the research from being submitted to journals. Stop the scientists from collaborating with others. Stop scientists from applying for research grants. Stop science from happening at all.


The elimination of whole branches of scientific work within the federal government, the slashing of governmental funds for science, and now a departmental veto on applying for research grants or submitting results to peer reviewed journals fits in the larger systemic dismantling of any aspect of governmental activities that could throw doubt on the wisdom of pressing for rapid expansion of fossil fuel exploitation.


‘Chilling’ is one word, but it does not seem adequate to this development. This is the 21st Century equivalent of the Dark Ages. This is book burning and superstition run rampant. This is the administration of a steady, slow drip of poison to a weakening democracy.

Canada no longer one of top 10 most developed countries: United Nations

What Really Killed Soviet Union? Oil Shock?

Oil Sands Cleanup Opportunity: Pay As You Go

Ask Your Senators and Representative to Support the Democracy Is For People Constitutional Amendment

"U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Congressman Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) have introduced a powerful constitutional amendment that would prevent corporations from spending to influence elections and would enable to government to regulate campaign spending from individuals."

New ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ Gives Monsanto Power Over US Government
"Monsanto is at war once again against health conscious consumers with the latest ‘Monsanto Protection Act‘, managing to sneak wording into the latest Senate legislation that would give them blanket immunity from any USDA action regarding the potential dangers of their genetically modified creations while under review."

Vaughn Palmer: How did a $6-million loan to two ex-government aides magically vanish?

Six fired, two lawsuits, one dead — but still no answers

Report details misuse of government resources

CBC balked at running taxpayer funded ads promoting (ruling party) BC budget

Government backs down on controversial forestry bill

Cyber-hacking War Finally gets Major Coverage

Cyber-hacking threat

 

MPs on Chinese hacking

Notice how the Conservatives try to avoid saying anything about China when questioned. Harper was on TV the other day saying that the best way to open up closed societies was to engage them in commerce. The opposite is what is happening, the dictatorships are getting stronger and influencing our democracies with all the money we outsourced to them. This has only made the enemy stronger, and provided the communist tyrants legitimacy.

Harper lets communist China have free rein over Canadian telecommunications

 

 

The Canadian Government’s 40 Hour Cyber Security Work Week

" …Government and private-sector systems are attacked by hackers, organized crime and state actors [China anyone? this government won’t say] on a “constant basis,” said [public safety minister] Toews…

Now I guess they think those types don’t work during Ottawa’s night:

  …the [Canadian Cyber Incident Response] centre [within Public Safety Canada] was still not operating on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis, as originally intended, shutting down weekdays at 4 p.m. Ottawa time and closing for the weekend. The government plans to extend those hours to 9 p.m., seven days a week, but not round-the-clock… "

Chinese firm's Canadian contracts raise security fears

" Even Canada's own intelligence agencies have warned the Harper government of the risks of throwing open the door to Chinese telecom companies.

Despite all the warnings, the federal and Ontario governments have rolled out the red carpet to Huawei, officially praising the Chinese company's partnerships in Canadian telecom projects with Telus, Bell, SaskTel and WIND Mobile.  

During a recent visit to China, for instance, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was "honoured" to have witnessed the signing of large contracts for Huawei to provide Telus and Bell with the latest LTE high-speed wireless networks across Canada. "

Canada must ramp up cyber security in wake of alleged China-led attacks, experts say

" “The Canadian government has been somewhat remiss in its approach to the problem” of cyber security, said Queen’s University professor and internet security expert David Skillicorn. "

China's military hacking attacks

 

Canada's reaction to cyber attacks

 

 

Chinese Army Unit Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S.

 

Chinese Army Hackers Are Trying to Bring Down U.S. Infrastructure

 

US ready to strike back against massive cyberattacks as firm details link to Chinese military

 

BBC reporter detained investigating China hacking

 

 

China military unit behind prolific hacking

 

China rejects Philippine effort at UN mediation over South China Sea territorial dispute

 

Russian military expert: “If Nagorno Karabakh conflict is not solved in 2013, war will be inevitable”

 

Job-Killing Trade Deficits Soar under "Free Trade" Agreements

 

HD misled saying it needed Chinese specialists for 'long wall' mining

" The company said it intended to use the so-called long-wall technique to harvest coal from its Murray River mine and insisted the Chinese workers were needed for their specialties in the use of it. "

"But according to documents obtained by the union, HD Mining's application to the B.C. Ministry of Natural Resource Operations in June 2011 shows during a two-year bulk sample collection period the company had no plan to employ the long-wall technique. "

Pipeline industry pushed changes to Navigable Waters Protection Act: documents

" Documents obtained through the Access to Information Act show it came, in part, from the pipeline industry.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association met with senior government officials in the fall of 2011, urging them not just to streamline environmental assessments, but also to bring in "new regulations under (the) Navigable Waters Protection Act," a CEPA slide presentation shows. "

Environmental law centre seeks investigation of muzzled federal scientists

" The complaint arises from a sweeping Conservative communications policy under which federal scientists must get permission before speaking publicly — permission that is often denied, delayed or limited to approved talking points. "

The Making of a Natural Gas Glut

" In recent years Wall Street banks helped a wave of foreign energy companies including Chinese, Norwegian and Japanese firms buy up shale oil and gas leases across North America, even though too few wells had been drilled to assess their longevity and quality.

"Shale gas accounted for $46.5 billion in deals in the U.S. alone in 2011," explains Rogers. "The mergers and acquisitions market for shale assets exploded in the prior two years directly in sync with the downward descent of natural gas prices. In much the same way as mortgage backed securities bolstered the banks' profits before the downturn, energy M&A had now become the new profit centre within these banks." "

Andrew Nikiforuk: The Big Shift

" He also warns that all citizens should prepare for "high and likely volatile oil prices," and that governments should be "educating their citizenry of the risk of contraction to minimize potential future social discord." "

If we are concerned about the availability of energy, why is the government in such a rush to ship the oil to foreign dictators.

NDP Pledges Election Reforms Libs Stalled

" 'City Hall for Sale'

The Tyee began raising awareness of the gaps in the regulation of municipal politics in 2007. "It is entirely possible for offshore money to buy a municipal election in British Columbia," said Patrick Smith, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University, quoted in the series "City Hall for Sale."

"And it would be easy for the recipient of that money to hide it from public view," Smith said. "I think that's pretty stunning." "

BC's small surplus depends on asset sales and optimism

" The sale of government assets will raise $475 million. "

Selling off property to pay the bills, selling off non-renewable resources for a piece of what they are worth, does that sound like strategic fiscal management to you?

OpenMedia's Steve Anderson - Crafting a connected future

Investment Treaties Basis of New World Order

The "Free Trade" agreements that have been forced on the world form the legal basis of Globalist Elite Rule. Our democratically elected "representatives" are bound by the orders handed down to them from unaccountable private international tribunals. Democracy has been stolen from us through an unholy axis between multinational corporations and the communist party of china.

The people demand the restoration of our sovereignty, that we may live in peace and self determination. That we may be secure from the clutches of tyranny. That no hostile force should rule over us, and all future generations are spared from the shackles of slavery.

The misguided belief of the few, that they are above the many, is the tragedy of mankind.

         J

    

Investment Treaties Like FIPA Spin Huge Profits for Lawyers

Canada, for example, is being sued for $250 million and legal teams feast off such wrangling.

By Jamie Biggar and Emma Pullman 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/30/FIPA-Profits-For-Lawyers/

Canadians from across the political spectrum have come together to oppose the secretive and extreme Canada-China FIPA investor deal. The FIPA would allow foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government if they believe any level of government has done anything to limit their interests, and the lawsuits would be heard in investor-state arbitrations that function as secret tribunals outside the Canadian court system. 

Within Canada, citizen opposition has fueled a media debate that has, in turn, been dominated by people who have an apparent financial stake in the outcome that has not been disclosed to the public.
And now, a new report shows that while other countries like Australia are rejecting investor-state arbitration, this radical form of democratic override is fast becoming a booming industry that is costing taxpayers billions, and challenging government decisions and common sense laws all around the world.

Broad opposition to FIPA



The opposition to the Canada-China FIPA is widespread and growing. Through Leadnow.ca and SumOfUs.org's campaigns alone, over 80,000 Canadians have sent messages opposing the FIPA deal to their MPs and party leaders. This community has written hundreds of letters to the editor and funded radio and print ads to challenge Conservative MPs on their home turf. Nearly 20,000 Canadians wrote statements opposing this FIPA to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade when they asked for public comment on their environmental assessment of the investor deal. Thousands have also spoken out against the Canada-China FIPA through campaigns organized by groups like the Council of Canadians, ForestEthics, Avaaz and the David Suzuki Foundation, and spontaneous protests have been organized around the country. 



From First Nations to conservative pundits, opposition to this FIPA is diverse and strong. First Nations leaders from across the country, such as the BC Union of Indian Chiefs and Chiefs of Ontario, have condemned the binding investor deal because it would break constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal rights and title by granting China's companies special extra-constitutional legal rights that could supercede the ability of First Nations to self-govern their territory. Conservative commentators like Diane Frances have also slammed the Harper Conservatives, writing in the Financial Post that "Ottawa capitulated to China on everything" by negotiating an agreement that will give Canadian investors little protection in China, while granting China’s companies the ability to undermine democratic control in Canada. 


 Many expected Prime Minister Harper to pass the Canada-China FIPA on Nov. 1, immediately after a mandatory 21-day waiting period. But the broad-based pressure seems to be having an effect and the treaty is now sitting idle, ready to be ratified at any moment, but with no clear indication of when or if that might happen.

Expert voices in the media



As the days have turned into weeks, a group of FIPA proponents have spread out across Canadian media to laud the benefits of this controversial investor deal and downplay the risks to our democracy and economy while Prime Minister Harper regroups. For Canadians trying to make sense of trade agreements and this FIPA, it is important to understand that there are surprisingly few Canadians with deep expertise on the subject of FIPA agreements and investor-state arbitration, a new and rapidly changing field. Prof. Gus Van Harten is a Canadian expert with international stature who has been sounding the loudest alarm from the beginning. He has never earned income by representing a corporation or working as an arbitrator in an investor state arbitration.

In contrast, in media interviews professor Andrew Newcombe has largely dismissed concerns that the Canada-China FIPA will undermine Canada's democratic control. Prof. Newcombe shares something with many of the FIPA proponents who have been writing op-eds and conducting media interviews over the last few weeks: he has an apparent financial stake in the matter because he has earned income representing corporations in the growing investor-state arbitration industry, and could benefit from that industry's further growth if the Canada-China FIPA is signed. In fact, on his LinkedIn profile, Newcombe lists himself as available for "consulting offers" and "expertise requests" in relation to international arbitration. 



In professor Newcombe's case, he represented (and may still represent) Commerce Corporation in a lawsuit that used the CAFTA investor deal to challenge El Salvador's moratorium on industrial gold mining. Newcombe also provides a private for-profit newsletter service to these firms that charges a premium for commercial firms engaged in this work.



For an even more prominent example, consider Matthew Kronby and Milos Barutciski, a pair of lawyers who have been advocating the Canada-China FIPA with op-eds in The Globe and Mail and Financial Post. These lawyers are partners at Bennett Jones, a firm that proudly offers its investor-state arbitration services to corporate clients who want to sue governments. 



Prior to Bennett Jones, Kronby was the head of the federal government's Trade Law Bureau. He was the government of Canada's lead lawyer on the controversial CETA trade deal with Europe, and left mid-negotiation to take a job in the private sector. Barutciski used to be a lobbyist for Enbridge, the company hoping to build the Northern Gateway oil pipeline from Alberta's oil sands to Kitimat on the B.C. coast.

Canada sued for $250 million via NAFTA



Barutciski's recent actions, on the other hand, have completely undermined one of the most important arguments put forward by the industry insiders of the benefits of FIPA: that corporate lawsuits heard behind closed doors in the Canada-China FIPA's secret tribunals will not undermine Canada's ability to make common sense laws to protect our environment, create good jobs or stop dangerous projects. Barutciski, on behalf of Bennett Jones, is representing U.S. energy company Lone Pine Resources that has just declared that it will use the investor-state arbitration mechanism in NAFTA to sue the Canadian government for $250 million because Quebec put a moratorium to halt shale gas fracking, including Lone Pine's exploration permits, in order to study the health and safety impacts of the increasingly controversial practice. In doing so, Barutciski has powerfully demonstrated that foreign corporations can use these secretive mechanisms to threaten Canadian taxpayers with massive penalties for prudent democratic decisions, even if those decisions, like Quebec's moratorium on fracking, affected both foreign and Canadian corporations.



Investor-state arbitration lawyers have a right to share their views, and we have a right to know where they're coming from. Just like you'd expect a financial analyst to tell you if they owned the stocks that they were trying to sell you, the legal industry that specializes in this area should declare its interest when they comment publicly on an issue of such mammoth common concern.



The upshot is that while opposition to the Canada-China FIPA has spread rapidly, far too many Canadians, including many Members of Parliament, don't really understand the stakes of the Canada-China investor deal. For example, Conservative MPs have responded to the tens of thousands of emails they are receiving from their constituents with a nearly identical set of talking points, likely crafted in the Prime Minister's Office, that reflect the industry insiders' message. In addition, few politicians and pundits have recognized that this looming FIPA dramatically raises the stakes of the CNOOC-Nexen takeover. If the Harper Conservatives approve the $15 billion takeover, CNOOC will be treated as a Canadian company and be able to buy control over more Canadian resources without having to face another test to see if it is of "net benefit" to Canada. If this FIPA passes, CNOOC will then be able to sue Canadian governments in secret tribunals if those governments do anything to counter its growing interests.

Hurtling down an expensive legal road



A new global system is spinning out of control.



One of the biggest problems with the Canada-China FIPA is that it could lock us into this investor-state arbitration system for 31 years, and we have no way of predicting how this system will develop. How will the arbitrators interpret the interests of corporations and responsibilities of governments? How big will the damages be? How often will the threat of a lawsuit stop legislation before it's put in place? Today, investor arbitration is already becoming a big global business, with huge consequences for taxpayers and democratic control.



According to a new report, "Profiting from injustice: How law firms, arbitrators and financiers are fuelling an investment arbitration boom" by the Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute, investor arbitration has boomed in recent years, from 38 cases in 1996 to 450 known cases as of last year. And, these are only the known cases -- there are cases that are not public, but we do not know how many. 



A small group of elite firms with for-profit arbitrators and lawyers are getting rich from these deals. Today, legal and arbitration costs average over US$8 million per dispute -- and sometimes exceed US$30 million. Entire legal teams handle cases with elite law firms charging as much as US$1,000 per hour, per lawyer. Arbitrators also earn hefty salaries: as much as US$1 million per case. 



Taxpayers are paying much of the bill for these law firm profits and the awards they are securing for their corporate clients, and we are talking about big money here. A WTO arbitration panel just ordered Ecuador to pay U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum $1.7 billion, and one of China's companies, the Ping An Insurance Group, has launched a lawsuit against Belgium for $2 billion. The growing damages are creating an incentive for investor-state arbitration firms to advise their corporate clients to sue governments for ever larger sums -- and the lawsuits are weakening or preventing laws that would put the public good ahead of narrow corporate interests. 



The report maps an inner network of highly influential firms that it alleges are disproportionately involved personally and financially in these cases and arbitration. The report claims many arbitrators play double or triple roles, alleging that these arbitrators act as counsel, as academics, as government advisors, as lobbyists and as media commentators. The report also alleges that some have strong personal and commercial ties to companies. All this gives these firms huge influence over the debate about the investor arbitration system, which they have a vested interest in sustaining.


Historically, the international investor-state arbitration system was justified and put in place by Western governments to protect corporations' investments from perceived bias and corruption within non-Western national courts. But the report argues that the so called "independent" arbitration system is becoming a self-serving multimillion-dollar industry dominated by a narrow exclusive elite of law firms. When you combine this with the track records of the tribunals and their generous interpretation of "corporate rights," it's time to ask serious questions about the industry's commitment to unbiased judgments and the interests of Canadians. 
Now is the time because this system is being extended to the developed world, led by Canada, right now by the Harper Conservatives.


Finally, and perhaps most troubling of all, the report also describes a new trend in the investment arbitration industry: third-party funding. Investment arbitration is becoming so lucrative that investment funds will actually speculate on cases, lending money to companies so they can sue governments -- and then they'll take a cut of 20 per cent to 50 per cent from the final award.

Nations rejecting investor-state arbitration



Countries are starting to rethink and reject investor-state arbitration, and return to settling disputes through national courts and diplomacy. Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela have terminated several investment treaties and withdrawn from the World Bank International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the main handler for these arbitrations. Argentina refuses to pay arbitration awards. South Africa has just announced that it will neither sign new investment agreements nor renew those that are set to expire.



In April 2011, the Australian government announced it would no longer include investor state dispute settlement provisions in its trade agreements. Specifically, it said it will not negotiate treaty protections "that would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses" or that "constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters in circumstances where those laws do not discriminate between domestic and foreign businesses." The Australian Productivity Commission completed a report on investor arbitration that found no compelling economic rationale for including investor-state arbitration mechanisms in its trade and investment agreements, and found few clear benefits along with several worrying risks associated with investor arbitration.



Barring constitutional challenges, if Prime Minister Harper signs the Canada-China FIPA investor agreement he will lock Canada into an investor-state arbitration system that seems to be growing increasingly self-serving -- a network of firms that would have a significant financial interest to court Beijing's business by delivering results for them. We are being told that this is a good idea by people who may have a financial interest in the outcome, and their views are being repeated by Conservative MPs who are simply repeating talking points sent to them by Ottawa. 



The Harper Conservatives are changing the structure of the country without public debate and with a backwards view that ignores the lessons learned by other countries. Just as they expanded mandatory minimum prisons sentences despite Texan Republicans telling them that their "fill-the-prisons" approach to justice had utterly failed in Texas, they are moving Canada towards even more secretive and extreme investor deals. Australia, India, South Africa are all moving to protect their right to make domestic policy by rejecting investor-state arbitration. But in Canada the goal is to lock in Prime Minister Harper's vision for the country as a mass exporter of raw resources. It's hard to get rid of prisons once they're built, and it's hard to get rid of pipelines once they've been rammed through with the threat of secretive billion dollar lawsuits. 



You can't lead a country by keeping it divided and in the dark, and in the cross-partisan opposition to the Canada-China FIPA and CNOOC-Nexen takeover we are seeing fertile soil for a broad rejection of their stealthy agenda.

Chinese Investor Lawsuits Could Cripple Canada

http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2012-10-24/chinese-investor-lawsuits-could-cripple-canada

OTTAWA – As the Harper Conservatives move steadily toward the probable November 2 ratification of the Canada-China Investment Treaty, an examination of Canada’s experience with similar investor rights under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) should raise some red flags.
“Under NAFTA, we gave US and Mexican corporations the right to sue us if they felt our laws hurt their ‘expectation of profits’,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands. “We’ve lost half of those suits and it has cost us in both arbitration battles and awards. Now Stephen Harper is about to give powerful Chinese State-Owned Enterprises similar rights.”
Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, taxpayers have had to pay about $157 million to US corporations disagreeing with Canadian laws and regulations – and there are awards pending.
Canada is already the sixth most sued country under the investor-state dispute settlement regime, according to a recent UN Conference on Trade and Development report. At the same time, Canadian investors have sued other countries, usually the US, 16 times and lost every case – involving softwood lumber, cattle, gold mining, and more.
There is every reason to expect Chinese enterprises and investors to make use of their new right, especially in the resource sector.
China can make claims for damages if it believes an environmental or health measure is “arbitrary” or a "disguised trade barrier."
Unlike lawsuits under NAFTA and other treaties signed by Canada, the Chinese suits must be kept secret; the arbitration hearings and all documents, except the actual award, can be kept confidential at the discretion of the country being sued. We might not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions.
“If Chinese companies like CNOOC - the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation - make crucial inroads into Canada with the Nexen deal, for example, we will be even more vulnerable. Even the provinces, which will have no say in the process, might be asked to pay up,” said May.
“It is interesting that the Conservatives are pushing us into a secretive, potentially treacherous deal as countries like Australia, India, and South Africa are pulling away from investor-state provisions.”
The Canada-China Investment Treaty was tabled quietly in the House of Commons on September 26. The Conservatives do not plan any debate or vote. Once it is ratified, it will bind Canada for a minimum of 15 years and could apply for 31 years.
Suits under NAFTA have included:
1997 – Ethyl Corporation sued Canada for $250 million after it banned MMT, a neurotoxin gasoline additive. The Canadian government repealed the ban and settled for $13 million.
1998 – S.D. Meyers Inc., a US waste-disposal firm, challenged a ban on the export of PCB wastes and sued for $20 million. Canada paid $5 million, plus interest
2007 – Mobil Investments Canada Inc. & Murphy Oil Corporation claimed Canadian guidelines supporting local research and development were anti-NAFTA and sued Canada for $65 million The tribunal process continues.
2009 – After AbitibiBowater Inc. closed its last pulp and paper mill, Newfoundland enacted legislation for the return of certain land and assets. The company sued for $467.5 million. Canada paid $130 million to settle claim.

http://www.greenparty.ca/stop-the-sellout
http://leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale?t=hp

Why I think we are absolute idiots if we approve CNOOC take-over of Nexen

By Elizabeth May on 18 September 2012 - 9:35pm

 http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2012-09-18/why-i-think-we-are-absolute-idiots-if-we-approve-cnooc-take-over-nexen

It is hard to know how else to put it. I don’t want to get anyone freaked out or overly alarmed, but are we paying any attention?
Attention should be paid to the fact that the Prime Minister has signed a deal with President Hu of China that promises investor protection. The text of said deal is not yet before the House of Commons, but everything I read about it (including from business analysts at Heenan Blaikie and Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt) anticipates the deal will include investor-state provisions similar to those in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows corporations from Mexico or the USA to claim damages against Canada if any level of Canadian government (municipal, provincial or federal) causes them to experience less profits than they had anticipated. Canada has actually repealed a law limiting a toxic gasoline additive when the US-based manufacturer sued under Chapter 11 — and we paid $10 million plus in damages. This outrage only gets more outrageous if the claims for multiple millions in damages come from a non-democratic enormous economy to which we have hitched our wagon as a compliant resource colony.
When will Mr. Harper share the text of this investor agreement with Parliamentarians? When will it be shared with Canadians? It was signed on September 8th when both Harper and Hu were in Russia. It must now be ratified. Assuming all the Conservative MPs who are worried about selling out our country to China do what they always do and submit to the will of the Boss, it will become a trade obligation. China will, if offended by any new health, labour, or environmental law, be able to make a claim for damages. I have already witnessed the chilling effect of Canada knowing a US based corporation can sue under Chapter 11. It was rumoured that former Liberal Health Minister Allan Rock refused to ban cosmetic use of pesticides for fear of Chapter 11 claims by US pesticide manufacturers.
What happens when Canadian laws, passed democratically, are struck down in hotel room arbitrations launched by the Communist Party of China?
I pay attention to things that CNOOC’s CEO says in public. In the August 29, 2012, Wall Street Journal, CNOOC CEO Wang Yilin said, “Large-scale deep-water rigs are our mobile national territory and a strategic weapon.” OK, so the bitumen isn’t mobile – until you mix it with diluents and stick it in a pipeline. But the oil sands do become Chinese territory. What did he mean about “strategic weapon?”
Are there national security implications?
I would love to trust in a national security review under the 2009 amendments to the Investment Canada Act, except that Stephen Harper specifically rejected the advice of the blue ribbon panel (struck after the Minmetal attempt to buy Noranda) that Canada needed a clear, objective definition of “national security.” The experts thought we should have a definition and use it to assess any takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign interests — particularly state-owned enterprises. Our PM rejected the advice. Instead the Canada Gazette for the 2009 amendments says that “national security” cannot be defined. It is, apparently, a fluid term.
Smart people I respect, like Andrew Coyne, say “don’t worry — there’s no national security threat when you cannot take the resource out of the country.” But then I run into stories like this:

Beijing hints at bond attack on Japan

Jin Baisong from the Chinese Academy of International Trade – a branch of the commerce ministry – said China should use its power as Japan’s biggest creditor with $230bn (£141bn) of bonds to “impose sanctions on Japan in the most effective manner” and bring Tokyo’s festering fiscal crisis to a head.

Writing in the Communist Party newspaper China Daily, Mr. Jin called on China to invoke the “security exception” rule under the World Trade Organisation to punish Japan, rejecting arguments that a trade war between the two Pacific giants would be mutually destructive.

Separately, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported that China is drawing up plans to cut off Japan’s supplies of rare earth metals needed for hi-tech industry.

- The Telegraph, September 19, 2012

OK, maybe he’s just threatening to destroy Japan’s economy. Maybe he doesn’t mean it. Maybe the WTO wouldn’t let him do it…. but then there was the Sino-Forest fraud, busted by the Ontario Securities Commission:

OSC puts the spotlight on Sino-Forest gatekeepers

In its allegations Tuesday, the OSC noted that auditors Ernst & Young “were not made aware” of Sino-Forest’s “systemic practice of creating deceitful purchase contracts and sales contracts.” The commission makes no further comment on the audit firm’s work. A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The OSC issued a report in March calling on boards, underwriters, auditors and stock exchanges to improve the practices for listing foreign companies on Canadian stock exchanges, saying there has been a broad lack of “skepticism” about business practices in emerging companies like China.

- Globe and Mail, May 22, 2012

There’s a beautiful term: “broad lack of skepticism.”
It makes me nervous that Chinese companies are merely branches of the Chinese government. The Communist Party hierarchy appoints the boards of directors of CNOOC, Sinopec and Petro-China.
When I read in the business pages that Petro-China wants to bid on construction of the Enbridge pipeline, and read in the same story that Chinese companies are very competitive in their bids because of low labour costs, I picture the labourers who built the national dream of Pierre Berton’s imaginings… with a brutal and nasty history. We have a temporary foreign workers programme. It could happen. And the bitumen going through the proposed pipeline is to go to Chinese supertankers to Chinese refineries.
Losing sovereignty to China makes me nervous. I don’t want to be intolerant. But I want us to trade items made in Canada, by Canadians, to China. I don’t like the idea of China owning Canada. It makes it hard for us to point out to the Chinese government that it must start respecting human rights. We need to be really forceful in advocating for religious and political freedom in China. How do we do that when they have veto power over Canadian laws? And then there are issues of global tensions. Mr. Harper and John Baird are talking tough to Iran. But what about the fact that, while we claim we are exerting sanctions on anyone doing business with Iran, Sinopec, now a major stake-holder in Syncrude, is Iran’s number one customer for oil? Or, that Chinese oil money helps prop up Bashar al-Assad?
So, bottom-line, the Nexen-CNOOC deal doesn’t have me nearly as freaked out as the investor deal Stephen Harper signed in Russia. But when I think about the idea of “net benefit” I just don’t see any answer but “no.”