Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Kinder Morgan TransMountain Pipe LIne

An Open Letter to Canadian Minister of Natural Resources,

The Honourable Jim Carr,

“ That, given the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is in the national interest, will create jobs and provide provinces with access to global markets, the House call on the Prime Minister to prioritize the construction of the federally-approved Trans Mountain Expansion Project by taking immediate action, using all tools available; to establish certainty for the project, and to mitigate damage from the current interprovincial trade dispute, tabling his plan in the House no later than noon on Thursday, February 15, 2018.”

During a speech you made in the House of Commons on Monday 12th February 2018 concerning the above Conservative motion on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipe Line you said this and I quote from Hansard and make some comments in italics after the statement:

“…….The project represents a $7.4 billion investment and thousands of good, middle-class jobs, a project that stands to benefit Canadians across the country, just as the existing pipeline has done since 1953, creating new access for Canadian oil to global markets and world prices.”

 

It pains me to have to remind MPs, especially Ministers who should know better, that the goop to travel through this pipeline IS NOT OIL.  It is something called Dilbit – diluted bitumen or diluted tar – from the Alberta Tar Sands.   Once again, I remind you of Article 605 of NAFTA which does not allow us to decrease the percentage of our bitumen production to be exported to the USA or Mexico, and as Rachel Notley stated in November to the Economic Club of Canada, the USA is a monopoly purchaser – which means that they take 100% of our bitumen.  How then are you going to export even I barrel of dilbit anywhere else, even to Mexico, without causing the USA to take us to a NAFTA tribunal for breaking Article 605?    Are you in essence saying that the benefits that Alberta might accrue by this ‘illegal’ exporting will outweigh the price the whole of Canada will have to pay for that inevitable tribunal fine?  How can you with a straight face say that this fine will be good for Canada?  By the way it is also estimated that after the line is built there will be 40 full-time jobs in BC, so where will the rest of the “thousands of good jobs” be?   Unwelcome memories of Joe Oliver and his promise of ‘hundreds of thousands of jobs’ from Northern Gateway come flooding back.

 

*

“We understand that one of the biggest concerns on everyone’s mind is the potential oil spill. We share that concern, which is why we have developed a plan that puts in place every safeguard against a spill happening in the first place.

Through the oceans protection plan, the Canadian Coast Guard now has more people, more authority, and more equipment to do its vital and necessary work. For the first time, two large tow vessels will be on call on the B.C. coast. Several Coast Guard vessels will be equipped with specialized toe kits to improve capacity to respond quickly. Primary environmental response teams, composed of specially trained personnel, will further strengthen the Coast Guard’s existing on-scene operations.”

This may be the case for an oil spill, but again this is not oil so do you really believe this for bitumen?  You claim that the Coast Guard will have a greater capacity to tow damaged vessels should a collision happen, but make absolutely no mention of how the bitumen will be cleaned from the floors of the Georgia Strait or the Strait of Juan da Fuca   You do not even mention that as it is not oil but heavier than water tar it will sink to the bottom, and that the dilutant consists of toxic gasses which will be released into the atmosphere.  Depending on the winds at the time, and there are always winds in both of those Straits, and the location of any crash those toxic fumes could have a very damaging affect upon the people of Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, Victoria and the Lower Vancouver Island, the San Juan Islands, or even Bellingham, Seattle, Port Angeles, Sequim or the US Military base at Whidbey Island in Washington State.

Obviously, you haven’t thought of that nor have the other members of the so-called environmental protection ministries, or do you simply not care and are the people of Washington State aware of that same lack of concern for them as you have for the people of coastal BC?

Naturally, our air-breathing friends from the ocean, whales, seals, sea lions, otters and coastal birds along with the fish which will be unable to swallow the bitumen clumps do not factor into your reasoning either.   It’s all to do with corporate money and profit isn’t it Mr. Carr?

*

After your speech there were, as usual, some questions two of which stand out:

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): 

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the minister’s intervention and, again, it was all flowery rhetoric. The Liberals govern by saying yes, but in truth they actually govern with a no. Every act they take leads to less investment in our communities. It has been estimated that just in one week, because of the price differential Albertans, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia are experiencing, one school and one hospital are being built in America and are not being built in Canada, all because the Liberals will not do anything about it. The minister talked about borrowing the land and environment from future generations. Absolutely the Liberals are borrowing huge, vast sums of money to finance their deficit spending and then not replacing it with investments.

On the TMX, the Trans Mountain expansion application was put in on December 16, 2013. We are five years and the line is still not built. I blame the government for doing this. I blame the government’s delays, talking a good game, but not doing anything. Another generation, the greatest generation, was able to almost fight World War II and win it and we are still waiting for a pipeline to be built, all because of the current government.

What does the minister have to say to my constituents about the government’s absolute failure to get energy infrastructure in the national interest built in Canada?

[Expand]

Hon. Jim Carr: 

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member’s constituents that the Government of Canada believes we strike a balance between energy infrastructure development to job creation and environmental stewardship. We believe we have struck that balance through the approval of very important pipelines. The point should not be lost that it is very important to Canada to expand its export markets, that 99% of our exports in oil and gas go to one country, the United States. That is not good for our country, which is why, for a variety of other reasons, we think TMX is in Canada’s interest.

It is true in other sectors of the economy. We know that 99% of our exports of softwood lumber from Quebec go to one country, the United States. Therefore, I think the hon. member’s constituents would feel that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of expanding in those markets, creating good jobs, and also of doing it in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

Quite apart from the sheer partisan nonsense posed by this eventual question –(“ Another generation, the greatest generation, was able to almost fight World War II and win it”… does that mean we were almost able to fight it or almost able to win it?) – and yet your answer was equally ambiguous referring to 99% of natural resources going to the USA with no reference to Article 605 of NAFTA and the problems that causes, and Minister Freeland has not even bothered to tell me if that is up for the re-negotiation of a Trade agreement which should be scrapped.   How can we export anywhere if we have already committed 99% of our production to the USA?  The Canadian Action Party has believed that NAFTA is good for the USA but not for Canada and Mexico, and we would signal our intent to scrap it immediately, and trade as we can with who we can at a mutually beneficial pace.

 Then a question with implications of grave concern:

Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby South, NDP): 

Madam Speaker, the minister said, irresponsibly, to a group of business leaders that he would use military defence and police forces to push this pipeline through. Will he stand in the House today and say that he will never do this, that it would never be considered, that he would not use the army and the police forces against British Columbians in their own communities, on the reserves, and in their municipalities? I would like him to stand today and say that is not an option on the table.

(1255)

[Expand]

Hon. Jim Carr: 

Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to that. I am both confused and disappointed as to why the hon. member continues to bring that up since I have apologized and said I had misspoken. Within a few days of having said it, I realized it would invoke images that were not healthy to the debate, and I apologized to indigenous leaders. I will say again, as I have said many times over many months, that I apologized and misspoke.

A question which asked for a yes or no answer and neither was given.  An apology for having “misspoken” – a phrase coined by Peter Van Loan in defense of Brad Butt’s outright lies to the House in the last parliament – though perhaps required at another place was not an answer to this question  very  much on the minds of all BC as we possible are facing a recurrence of what happened at Standing Rock right here at home from our own army and the rent-a-cop RCMP.   The assumption here is that you cannot answer with either a yes or no and that the people of BC should be prepared for any eventuality.

War Measures Act over a pipeline anyone?

I am sure that the good people of Winnipeg must be wondering how safe Lake Winnipeg might be under this government’s carefree blindness to the realities of their health and indeed even their lives.

 

Jeremy Arney

ps  a copy of this was sent to Jay Inslee, Governor of the Washington State and was replied to immediately

OH CANADA, WHERE ART THOU?

 

 Every day in our House of Commons, MPs stand and spout the word “democracy” over and over and occasionally – very rarely actuality – “sovereignty”.

There is no doubt in my mind that none of them have the first idea what either word means, but they are buzz words that seem to imply that they are working for Canadians.

This simply is not the case.

Sovereignty: (Canadian Oxford dictionary)

“the absolute and independent authority of a community, nation etc.,”

If we had sovereignty really, then why would all our political representatives have to swear allegiance to the Queen of England rather than to the people of Canada who elect and pay them?  Why would we have to abide by so-called Trade Agreements and surrender our environmental protection and laws to international corporate profits?

 

Democracy: (Canadian Oxford dictionary)

“a form of government in which the power resides in the people and is exercised by them either directly or by means of elected representatives”

The claims are made that we elect politicians to represent us, but actually, most Canadians will tell you that they vote for the party, not the person, and even worse they vote for who they want to be the most powerful person in Canada.  We all hope, in vain it turns out, that that person will actually work for Canada and Canadians.   They do not.  The two parties which have ruled Canada since it began are almost interchangeable today, and the fact remains that party politics require that all MPs vote with their party leader, not on behalf of their constituents, their hearts or their heads. What we have had over the years are two parties which respond to the national and international corporations and banks and we would be better described as a corpocracy, not as a parliamentary democracy

So much for democracy.  

                                                                           *

 

Stephen Harper announced in 2006 that we would not recognize Canada when he was through with it, and proceeded to make parliament completely dysfunctional.   Corporate welfare and investment deals were his things.  He made a point of announcing major decisions overseas, usually on a Friday night; committees of the House of Commons were routinely disrupted by his minions, with the most classic being by John Baird, a Minister and therefore not eligible to sit on any committee, on June 4th 2010

His budget implementation omnibus bill of 2012 gutting or repealing some 70 Acts, simply to make life easier for his corporate friends and donors was an action as contemptuous of the Canadian people as was the behavior that caused his to be the first government in the history of Westminster style parliaments to be defeated on the grounds of contempt of parliament.  To prove the contempt point he promptly accused the opposition of causing an election the Canadian people did not want over an already defeated budget.   There are many of us who thought that any member of that government should be barred from standing in the following election, but the people of Canada bought into his lies and gave him that final right to destroy Canada without opposition interference.

Democracy?   Not on your life.   Dictatorship? Absolutely.

 

Justin Trudeau came in with a fanfare and promise of “sunny days” which most of us thought were for us, but naturally, we were wrong again.  Those sunny days were for the corporations at home and more particularly from abroad, which would reap the benefits of a continued surrender of sovereignty through investment deals disguised as Free Trade Agreements.   Both CETA and TPP (or whatever the new name is) give foreign ‘enterprises’ or ‘entities’ the same rights as Canadians are supposed to have under the Charter of Rights and freedoms, and yes this was confirmed in writing by the current Minister of Trade.

From CETA under definitions:

person means a natural person or an enterprise;

person of a Party means a national or an enterprise of a Party;

This means that Daimler-Benz or Fiat, for example, under CETA have the same rights in Canada as do you and I.  Well, that is, if you know how to obtain those rights which you can be sure they do.

                                                                                 *

Now we have a federal government which has deliberately created a real rift between British Columbia and Alberta over a pipeline which can in fact not be used for exporting bitumen by boat to anywhere except the USA.

You may ask: “What?  How is this possible?”

NAFTA.

Article 605 of that agreement states that we can increase the percentage of production of any natural resource, but particularly petroleum products, to either the USA or Mexico, but we cannot later reduce that percentage to either country.   Since we only have one customer for the bitumen from Alberta as, according to Rachel Notley the Alberta Premiere, the USA takes 100% of our bitumen production so it follows therefore that all those proposed supertankers from Burnaby BC must head for an American port and not as claimed to another country or customer.

What happens if they try and go anywhere else?  Then the USA will take us to a NAFTA tribunal and it will cost Canada billions.  In an attempt then to give Alberta a few extra bucks the Canadian people will have to pay through the nose. That is described as being good for Canada.  I find it hard to agree with that.

As long as we have two interchangeable political parties in Canada which simply switch the colour of the ruling party every now and then we are doomed to sink further into the abyss both financially and morally.

Thus my question:  Oh Canada where art thou?

If we must retain the party system and obtain any form of democracry then we must have a minority government with a large number of small party or independent MPs holding the balance of power who can and will represent their people and will force amendments to bad bills, support good bills and really hold the government of Canada to account on behalf of the Canadian people.   Could we do this?    Yes, if the people want it we can.   Canadian apathy, however, will stop any change.

I left the UK in1967 and came to Canada to have and raise my family.  There are now four generations of Canadian Arneys on Vancouver Island, and I fear for their future, especially if BC remains part of a Canada which is becoming increasingly hostile to this province.

Where do we go from here?  It’s up to us, not those puppets of big money currently bragging that they listen to us when they do not.

 

Jeremy

Pipelines, Albertan tar and NAFTA

Premiere Rachel Notley of Alberta.

13th January 2018

 I was cruising CPAC the other day and I came across your address to the Economic Club of Canada from 21 November 2017 concerning amongst other things the need for pipelines from the Alberta tar sands to tidewater.

 You said and I quote:

 “…..we need to be able to sell that energy from that energy industry to more than just one client.

Right now, all our energy infrastructure is built for export to the United States.  They are a monopoly buyer.”

 I will not argue with that at all, but there is a catch to what you are saying.

 I am referring to NAFTA, and in particular Article 605 which I quote below:

 

NAFTA

Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

  1. a)the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

 

From this, it is clear from what you are saying that we are exporting 100% of the bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to the US and we cannot reduce that percentage without the approval of the US.  As long as that Article of NAFTA, or indeed NAFTA itself, remain in effect there is no way that even a “barrel” of tar can be shipped anywhere except to the United States, which in essence owns 100% of your tar.

It is also clear that you are suggesting that the disputed Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby is to transport that diluted tar intended for export by super oil tankers to, amongst others, China.

Clearly, Minister Freeland, to whom I have written numerous times on this very Article 605 with absolutely no response, chooses to ignore this important NAFTA  article even if it must be clear to her that we have a serious problem.

What both of you are suggesting is that a claim in front of a quasi-legal trade tribunal is of no importance to you as the people of Canada will be happy to pay the millions in lost profit which the US importers of this Canadian tar will claim against us as soon as you ship so much as one kilogram of tar somewhere else.

Perhaps you have a way around this?

If so I would be very pleased to hear it.

What I personally hope is that President Trump does actually go ahead and cancel NAFTA and you can then at least contemplate exporting your tar elsewhere in the world and, I would suggest, through a port in Alaska.

Incidentally the concept that supertankers do not get into trouble, never accepted by the coastal people here in BC, is under a black cloud of smoke right now as there is one on fire in the China Seas after a collision, and there is no way that any spill of diluted bitumen in either the Vancouver Harbour, Georgia Strait or the Strait of Juna Fuca can be cleaned up any more than was that mess in Michigan. 

It is unfortunate that in your desire to make things better again for Alberta, you should choose to trample over British Columbians in the same way our original settlers did to the then long-time inhabitants of what we now call Canada. 

Strange how history repeats itself isn’t it Ms Notley?

Jeremy Arney

 

Ps,

We are a long way from this and getting further away each day

 

When the Landscape is Quiet Again.

Governor Arthur A. Link, October 11th, 1973.

We do not want to halt progress; we do not plan to be selfish and say North Dakota will not share its energy resources. We simply want to ensure the most efficient and environmentally sound method of utilizing our precious coal and water resources for the benefit of the broadest number of people possible.

And when we are through with that and the landscape is quiet again, when the draglines, the blasting rigs, the power shovels and the huge gondolas cease to rip and roar and when the last bulldozer has pushed the spoil pile into place and the last patch of barren earth has been seeded to grass or grain, let those who follow and repopulate the land be able to say, our grandparents did their job well. The land is as good and in some cases, better than before.

Only if they can say this, will we be worthy of the rich heritage of our land and its resources.”

NAFTA renegotiations a joke? Maybe…

It really is time to get serious with what our ex-Trade Minister and now Foreign Minister has and is still doing about our investment agreements, misnamed Free Trade Agreements.

Right from the start, Ms. Freeland ignored all requests and pleas not to sign on with the TPP, or CETA with their crippling investor-state profits protection clauses.  She ignored all those and went ahead and signed both of them with those clauses in place.

Now she, not the International Trade Minister, is negotiating the revamping of NAFTA, which is an offshoot of the infamous FTA between a had been actor and a drunk.   This is where the investor-state clause came into play and has in effect greatly limited our ability to make and uphold the laws in Canada which will serve Canada and the Canadian people rather than foreign (and now domestic) corporations and their perceived profit losses if they run afoul of our laws.

 From the Toronto Star:

As reported by TONDA MACCHARLES, Ottawa Bureau reporter

Wed., Aug. 16, 2017

“Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters Wednesday, “We believe that just as good fences make good neighbours, a good dispute settlement mechanism makes good trading partners.”

 It is comments like this that make me realise we have someone negotiating for us who has no idea what the difference is between a Trade Agreement and an Investment Agreement.   Chapter 11 of NAFTA is nothing to do with trade but everything to do with investments and perceived profit loss from those investments which run contrary to Canadian laws. 

 Further down in the article there is this about the $205 million paid out by Canadian taxpayers so far:

“….and most of that came when a panel awarded $130 million in damages in one case: AbitibiBowater’s $500 million claim against the Newfoundland government which expropriated its water and timber rights and hydroelectric assets in the province after the company closed its last mill in that province and laid off 800 workers…..”

I added the bold and explain why:

It should be pointed out that those water and timber rights were granted to Abitibi in early 1900 provided that they had a working mill employing Canadians. When that mill was closed and the Canadians were laid off their claim on those water and timber rights ended. How can you expropriate something which returns to you by default anyway? This claim by Abitibi was not presented before a NAFTA tribunal because Stephen Harper quietly paid them $130 million of our money to “go away”. That this was one of his first acts and that it exceeded the total cost of the “sponsorship” scandal (which, with the connivance of the RCMP, allowed him into power) by some 15 million dollars is an indication of the contempt Harper had for Canada and Canadians.

This is all very pathetic, but bear in mind that there is a claim for $250 million from a Canadian Company – yes you read that correctly – Lone Pine Power of Calgary, Alberta (incorporated in Delaware, USA) had their proposal to drill and frack the St Lawrence River in Quebec turned down because a proper environmental study had not been conducted by Quebec or the Federal Government.

This information is readily available on the Government of Canadian Website:

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng

We can also expect a claim from Enbridge (also incorporated in Delaware) for the rejection of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, and most likely Kinder Morgan if BC stands by its citizens and the courts overrule Trudeau and refuse to allow this monstrosity to be constructed.

Chapter 19 of NAFTA is to do with dumping etc., and this is where we are constantly under attack for our softwood lumber.   I do not understand this at all.  If the Americans want to pay more for our lumber let them, and if they do not want to pay our price do not supply them.  Can it be simpler than that?    American protectionism is at play here again and the fact is that they do not have enough home-grown lumber to supply their own needs so they would be forced to get the extra from somewhere. Insisting on Canadian producers charging more through countervailing duties makes little sense to me.

Since I wrote the above I found a House of Commons Trade Committee hearing at which Ms. Freeland appeared before the NAFTA negotiations started this summer and frankly I was more puzzled, annoyed and concerned than ever.  The Trade Minister was nowhere to be seen so he is, I suppose, just male window dressing to her Cruella De Vil. 

The Liberal and Conservative MPs offered questions that were pure pablum, (it did not seem to matter that she waffled so much and didn’t answer those pablumatic questions anyway) leaving it to Tracey Ramsay of the NDP to ask about the investor dispute mechanism to which the reply was just as it is in CETA; that is to say nothing changes. There was some talk of there being a European court to deal with CETA disputes, so an undefined but new European court with no clear jurisprudence or base of operation would have decided on Canadian law?  Yeah right, Freeland, Right!   As it reads now same old same old tribunal of corporate lawyers with no actual court of any kind of law in sight to decide on the value of our laws against perecived corporate profit loss.

After a question about Quebec electricity charges and supply to New England states and New York was neatly sidestepped  Ms. Ramsay asked about the percentages of energy production not being able to be reduced even in an emergency.

From NAFTA

Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Articles XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

 

  1. the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

So the real answer to that Quebec Hydro question should have been clear.  Not only can the supply not be lessened, but lack of payment for that hydro cannot be the reason for stopping the supply.  Ask BC, they have not been paid by California for about 20 years but are stuck with the supply, and the people of BC are paying for this.

Once again here is Freeland wanting to keep this when for nearly two years she has not been able to come to an agreement about our softwood dispute, so I can be forgiven if I state that I do not trust her at all, anyway why is she in charge of this not Champagne our actual trade minister?   Maybe it’s to keep her hatred of Russia under control…….

Since consultation have been held about NAFTA with Universities, think tanks, Chambers of Commerce and Labour and Corporations it is clear to whom Freeland feels responsible. “We are listening to Canadians” is the Liberal war cry and I know I have written to her about 19 times now and have not received any response at all.   It is abundantly clear to me that the Canadian people do not figure in her mind at all, and whatever the international corporations want she will do her very best to give them at our expense.

 “Sunny Days” Trudeau supports her completely and as we have learned those sunny days and sunny ways never did apply to those Canadians who voted for him but do to international corporations which so far do not vote.    Wonder when that will change?

Jeremy

Mr. Michael Marsh:

    I guess the argument is that democracy is not just about majorities; it’s about minorities. It’s about blending minorities to make political decisions, and that’s quite difficult if the minorities are not represented.

For the minorities read Canadian people……

A great relief for BC?

So now things are bubbling and boiling so to speak in BC.

There has been a fiasco going on under Christy Clark who promised huge royalties and great wealth for BC from the NE Gas exploration, fracking and piping to the coast of cheap LNG for overseas consumption.  Anyone who really looked at this project could see it was put up job and would never really happen. Our federal environmental and resources departments as well as fisheries and oceans were supposed to examine the business case for such a development before giving approval but in typical pretty boy fashion they acted for the cameras and not the people of Canada or BC.   Not only did they approve this fiasco but they also approved the site C dam being built (without that approval anyway) designed to provide “free” power to Petronas.  Can you spell competency?

Fracking takes huge volumes of water and many times I have asked Rich Coleman, the “Minister” in charge, where this water was going to come from and he of course never replied. Now we find that almost every bit of moving water in northern BC has already been dammed by a Petronas offshoot.

CBC did a small incomplete report on this as well.

This has been done without approval of any regulatory body but with the obvious knowledge of Clark and Coleman. No wonder he wouldn’t reply to my requests.   Change of power and suddenly the provincial engineers can talk about what has been going on.

Now Petronas has pulled out.  What a relief for BC and for the people of NE BC who can think that maybe their drinking water will be safe to drink and the earthquakes will not increase.

Next ramification is that repulsive, unnecessary and dangerous site C dam.  What now is the point if that electricity is no longer needed solely for Petronas?  Can you imagine that anyone would deliberately bankrupt a crown corporation for the benefit of a corporation from Malaysia?    How much would be the bribe for that do you suppose?  A Board seat for both Christy and Hamish maybe?   Again the question must be asked why did the pretty boy ministers rush to approve this monster? was it because it was altready being built by one of their corporate heros, Ms. Clark?

Note to John Horgan:

It will take a lot of guts to cancel the site C dam and refurbish that whole area, but it would be welcomed by all of BC.  We do not need that power, never did, in fact our personal consumption of power is still falling.  If we did need more hydro power we could insert extra generators into our existing dams.  It is also time to stop paying all those run-of-the-river power companies for not producing any power as we do not need it (about $50 million a year in non-production profits), and stop BC Hydro buying from them at the absurd price gifted by one Gordon Campbell, let them sell what they can if they can on the open market.

The fact is that W A C Bennet built BC Hydro and dams that today would not probably be acceptable, with the idea that the people of BC would never be short of cheap efficient delivery of electric power. He even had an agreement with the seven western states to buy from us on a twenty-year fixed price.   He was not to know that a broken-down actor and a drunk from Quebec would get together and create an investment agreement (FTA) which would mean that his price would last as long as that investment deal.  You see there can be no increase in power costs across the border without both the President and PM agreeing so we are stuck, and NAFTA reinforced this.  California, being broke, still thinks we are gouging them!   Luckily it would appear that “The Donald” is determined to do away with NAFTA and we can then charge what our power is worth today.   Oh, by the way, run-of-the-river power is unacceptable to the Californians on the grounds that it is not environmentally green.

BC, just like the rest of Canada, needs to make sure that those we elect to REPRESENT our needs do just that and maybe just maybe with this precarious situation in BC we might have that happen.    It’s up to us to see that it does.

Peace, but get involved as it is your life.

Jeremy

For the last few months I have been kept away from this keyboard by events somewhat beyond my control.

Death in the family always takes up energy and time and saps the flow of creative thinking, not that I excel in that regard anyway, and when combined with extra time at work I have been stretched rather thin.

Why the heck am I still working at my age?  Well really with the help my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren need I have no choice.  I do not have millions stashed away in offshore accounts nor millions invested in stocks and shares – two ex-wives have helped in that regard – so I have no choice but to still work.  The alternative is to rely on CPP and OAS and live on the streets.

But I have kept up with most of what has been happening from pretty boy trying so hard to provide “sunny days and sunny ways” for international corporations and banks but not for the Canadian people, and removing any chance of sovereignty or democracy here in Canada; to President Trump and his reality show called the USA; to the wicked witch of the west (Clark) finally being kicked out of office in BC and resigning her provincial seat because if she can’t be in charge she doesn’t want to be there at all. After all she was only interested in the well-being of the corporate world not that of the people of Kamloops let alone BC.

 

Perhaps the biggest development of all is happening out of the state of Israel.  For those who do not know there is a bill being presented to the US Congress and Senate (S. 720) which will make it illegal for free speech about the choice of what goods Americans purchase and what companies they boycott.   http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41454-this-anti-bds-bill-is-an-assault-on-free-speech

This will eventually affect us here in Canada as our pretty boy and all his fellow puppets in our House of Commons will do whatever The Zionist State of Israel tells them to.   The idea that a state which openly practices genocide and an apartheid system towards the Palestinian people should want to claim that the BDS movement is anti-semantic is akin to saying that the Himalaya mountains are in Australia.

I am not now nor have I ever been anti-semantic but what I really would like is for someone with the knowledge and resources to provide us a complete list of all those companies which produce on Israeli seized Palestinian land so that I can refuse to buy their products as well. I already do not buy anything which I know comes from Israel, and I object to that state telling me what I can or cannot buy.

Yes, I support the BDS movement and it is my choice to do so.

In the same way I will buy Deep Cove, Vancouver Island, BC packaged organic greens rather than those trucked in from California if that is OK with Herr Netanyahu and the Donald, and if it is not then that is their problem not mine.

Freedom of speech and selection is either guaranteed to Americans by constitution or not and when that is taken away by a foreign apartheid power then the US government has no sovereignty, no dignity nor any worth as a self-determining body.   Actually, I suppose nothing has changed in that regard, has it?

Here in Canada we are not far behind. Remember Bill C51 (Blaney’s free spying act) and how it was supposed to be rectified immediately in 2016? Does anyone still think it will be?

Peace

Jeremy

Is a new privately owned Canadian Infrastructure Bank treason?

Press release sent out on 12th May 2017 with copies to every MP Canada’s dysfunctional democracy has in it’s parliament.

Infrastructure Bank of Canada

 

There is no doubt in my mind that this bank is not in the best interests of the people of Canada, but is a huge boon to the supporters of the Liberal (and maybe even the Conservative) party of Canada.

 

How anyone in their right mind and being, as they so often claim, “representatives of the people of Canada”, can conceive that a bank created and supported by financial entities only concerned with making a profit for themselves whilst taking over the major infrastructure projects at  both federal,  provincial  and municipal levels as being in the best interests of not only Canada but also the Canadian people is beyond my comprehension until I realise that those who support such a venture are indeed traitors to Canada.

 

We have the means and the ability through the Bank of Canada, designed to bring dividends to Canada instead of rapidly increasing debt to all levels of Canadian governmental institutions, to provide both Canada and Canadians with all they need to return to being a prosperous country again.   However  both this government and the previous one are, or were, hell bent on taking Canada into a position of complete subservience to the large banking and corporate interests. Such concepts as sovereignty and democracy mean nothing to them, and those MPs who support them are not worthy of being called Canadians even though they are gladly feeding at the federal trough, and will no doubt benefit well from supporting such a bank.

 

I have no doubt that there will be huge tax concessions to all international and domestic entities which invest in this venture whilst the ordinary Canadian will continue to be taxed heavily on any small profit they make from employment, investments,  savings and more, as well as paying user fees,  to pay for the profits to be derived by this monstrous and totally unnecessary bank.

 

If it is so important to have a referendum on the way we vote, why is it not important to have a referendum on the way we give Canada away?   Where are people like Scott Reid on this subject?  As he is such a stickler for the importance for Canadians to have their say (which they actually had in the election of 2015) on election reform why is he not arguing for such a referendum on this bank?  Could it be that democratic and sovereignty matters are now strictly subjective subjects for theoretical debate and no longer apply to Canada or Canadians?

 

Our elected representatives are failing us with a completeness which proves how broken our system of government has become.

 

There is no logic for Canadians in this bank.

 

There is no profit or benefit for Canadians in this bank.

 

In our 150th year since the original confederation of a mere 4 provinces, augmented later by the eventual creation and addition of more provinces and territories, our so called federal government is handing the whole kit and caboodle over to unelected entities which have no respect for or responsible to Canadians.

 

WHERE IS THE MANDATE FOR SUCH TREASON?

 

WHERE IS THE ANGER FROM CANADIANS?

 

IT REALLY IS TIME FOR CANADIANS TO HAVE THEIR SAY IN OUR DYSFUNCTIONAL AND UNDEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENT.

 

LET’S GET AT IT WHILST WE STILL HAVE A COUNTRY.

 

Jeremy Arney

Interim Leader of the Canadian Action Party.

Sidney BC

250-216-5400

Rev Fox writes to Paul Rand and I am moved to respond.

Many of you know that I am not a follower of any religious organization, nor a supporter of any church, but believe completely in the right of anyone to have whatever religious beliefs they wish to have.  However someone sent me a letter written by a Rev. Dr. Mathew Fox to the Speaker of the House in the USA  Paul Ryan, and whilst I agree in principal with all he said this particular passage appealed to me because it also applies to our own Canadian Dictator:

 

“I pray that you may be converted and return to the teachings of Christ and the Church striving to teach in his name very soon.  Time is running out for our species and you are in a position of trust and responsibility and leadership in our country at this time.  Earn it!

Meanwhile, until you and your party pay attention at last to these basic issues, I as a Christian priest and theologian can only conclude that you are not at all a Catholic or a Christian but just one more hypocrite flaunting your bogus religion on your sleeve to garner more votes and stay in a cushy job while you sell your soul to the Koch brothers and other Wall Street misers.  People who don’t have a clue about the “weightier matters of the Law—justice, compassion, good faith!” (Mt. 23:23) that Jesus preached, and who could not care less.

Jesus had something to say about that too, remember?  It was strong stuff.  He was speaking to you, Paul Ryan, and your fellow politicians when he said: “Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You who are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of corruption.  In the same way you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness….You are the sons of those who murdered the prophets.”  (Mt 23.27-28, 31):              Rev. Dr. Matthew Fox”

 

Great stuff and good on you Rev Fox for putting it out there.

 So how does it apply to our pretty faced, great haired (!) dictator?  One of my favourite cartoons is where a mask of Trudeau is taken of the face of Harper with the caption “Surprise!”   Toxic trade deals which should be investment agreements such as CETA, TPP and TiSA, pipelines, damns, fracking for LNG, toxic fish farms are all left over Harper dealings wholeheartedly accepted by Trudeau, not because they are good but because his puppet masters tell him he must.

Then of course there are two election promises made quite deliberately and neither one going ahead. 

One was abandoned, the promise that 2015 was to be the last FPTP election held in Canada. We all know what happened with that one and the money and energy spent by so many before such a pathetic excuse was given that there was “no consensus in Canada” for change.  Even the younger generation do not accept that, and they were bought on board by that promise.  The damage done to even the idea of political promises here is immense since it further destroys the fragile confidence held by the next generation that they could believe in anything they are told, now they know that they cannot.  

The second promise was the relationship between Canada and her original peoples who have been here for millenniums and have been treated with contempt and distaste for at least the one hundred and fifty years Canada had been Canada.  Both they and we were promised a new relationship, and one year + in we see nothing new.   Young indigenous people are still so desperate and full of despair they are taking their own lives.  Clean running drinking water is scarce, education is hit and miss, healthcare – particularly mental health –  is almost nonexistent, and in effect we still have our original peoples largely held in a third world country state within Canada. Can we be proud of that?  Are they not human beings too?  Way too much talk and nowhere near enough action. This quote from the Cree people applies just as much here:

“Only when the last tree has died, and the last fish has been caught, and the last river has been poisoned, will they realize that money cannot be eaten”.

So where do we go from here?   Clearly our system in Canada is broken, and it is time to fix it instead of simply accepting the status quo.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Winston Churchill

If I was a young person today I would be looking at the alternative political parties, because I would know that we can interchange the two major parties, add in the third easily and know that they are all controlled by big money, do not represent their constituents to the parliament of Canada (maybe on very small matters of individual comfort they can do something but in debates and votes they are robots); yet they speak of democracy not even knowing what that is, and expect us to accept that.  

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

 

I do not accept that now as an old man, but if I was young again I would be doing all I could to ensure that there were 12 – 15 parties represented in our Canadian House of Commons and that they were looking out for the Canadian people not simply their wealthy friends, supporters and lobbyists.   This means working for and voting for any fringe party or independent in any riding and ensuring that the Liberal/Conservative cycle of power is ended and replaced with a real form of democracy.

 Albert Einstein:   The world is a dangerous place not because of evil people, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.

It was very interesting last week to see an event “Daughters of the Vote” in Ottawa, put on by Equal Voice,  and to see 337 young women take the seats of their MPs in the House of Commons, and to hear some of them make statements.  There were MPs in the gallery watching and they should have been impressed by the passion they saw from these young women, and yet later when they took back the HOC it was the same old partisan nonsense as if nothing had happened earlier, and the lesson was completely missed.   How sad.

 

Meanwhile thank you Rev Fox for speaking out against not only the USA but all governments everywhere that are only interested in self-aggrandizement and support for their wealthy friends to the detriment of the real people of the world.

 

Jeremy

Why Not Canada?

Why not Canada?

One of the biggest problems that Canada has developed over the years is the reduction of income to the Canadian treasury.

We no longer have a national railroad when we used to have two.  We have no longer have a merchant navy fleet.  We basically have given away all our commons so carefully built from 1935 to 1974.  In itself this is bad, but we have also lost the revenue which they were created to produce. The less the country’s income the more is required of the working poor who cannot afford overseas hidey-holes.

We have idle steel mills in Ontario, idle saw mills and pulp mills in BC and Alberta, we have closed manufacturing plants all across Canada, we have GMO crops that half the world doesn’t want, and we have no real ability to refine our crude oil or even that gunk from Athabasca.

We have coal all over for manufacturing steel but instead we are shipping it off shore and buying the steel back; we have miles and miles of fertile soil in the prairies poisoned by GMO and toxic fertilizers; we have livestock so full of steroids or GMO grains that they are susceptible to disease:  we have manufacturing plants dead because we won’t produce things that we buy from overseas using our raw products sold at giveaway prices..  We have lost all the jobs that go with this and we need to get them back.

It is time to look to what we can do not what we have been told we must do to survive in the global market.  We have done it before and we can do it again.

This is not protectionism but survival and it is time we stepped up to the plate again.  We cannot successfully trade if we have nothing to offer but raw resources which will eventually run out.

Why not nationalize CP and CN again?  They must be making money and why are we allowing that money to go abroad.  We used to have people traveling by rail from small towns everywhere to market towns , now everyone has a car they can’t really afford and that are costly to maintain and run.   Mom and pop stores have been decimated and replaced by big box stores, almost all foreign owned.  We are told that this is the only way as it is the way of the global market.

We do not believe it has to be this way.

Canada has so much to offer not only to our own citizens but to the world and we will never be complete and sovereign as long as we do not use what we have.   Trade is essential but not at the prices we are being asked to pay.

It is time to say enough is enough and educate our young to work at something other than the texting keyboard on their cell phones.  Give them pride in what they can make and accomplish.

We have a huge diversity of ideas and abilities which are being squandered behind the counters of Timmy’s or MacDonalds.  We have a work force that is unprepared at this time to do the things we all need.  What happens when the baby boomers are replaced with a workforce which does not know  which end of a wrench to use, which lever operates the plough, what wood to use for a solid and fire proof door, or how to shingle a roof or even how to use welding torch?

We have the resources and the manpower and they are both going to waste.

Enough is enough and it is time to face the facts that as a nation we are broke, we need work for our young and we need industries and specially infrastructure owned by and for us all.

Mostly what we need is to rekindle the dream called Canada.

The Canadian Action Party knows all this and can and will make it happen.  You can join us in this venture or you can sigh and carry on the way you are carrying on now.  We would rather you joined us to make that difference in the life of all Canadians, particularly the coming generations.

 

Jeremy Arney

Black Clouds over Canada

VERY BLACK CLOUDS ARE REPLACING “SUNNY DAYS”.

 This last month we have been presented with our worst fears about the so called “sunny days” government of Canada.

 We understood that sunny days and sunny ways meant that we had elected a government that was willing to listen to us and work with us and for us.   That concept was refreshing and even a little encouraging despite some inherent reservations.

 Yes, we saw a balanced cabinet, yes we saw an initial change in the atmosphere in the House when it convened to pass some immediate tax relief for the upper “middle class” – really how many Canadians are actually in the “middle class” bracket?   For those on CPP and OAS or those struggling to make $40,00 per year it was a completely meaningless exercise.

 But what has happened since then to give Canadians the idea that we are important, that we matter, that indeed we even count as far as this federal government is concerned?

 Well, there has been consultation on election reform held assiduously around the country and with thousands of people making presentations to the special committee.  Since the conservatives have been insisting on a referendum first (not sure on what as the vast majority of Canadians want a change) and now the NDP are going to support that, so maybe there is little chance of there being any development by 2019. Good tactics by the Cons so they can say: “See he didn’t keep this huge promise!”   How does maneuvering like this serve the Canadian people?

 TPP consultations were held to supposedly allow Canadians to express their views, but in fact the committee was presented to 95% by corporate sponsors with a smattering of individual views expressed so a foregone conclusion was reached in a flawed process.

 The aboriginal people of Canada were promised much for education, housing and health but is the money flowing or are consultations still preventing that from happening?

 The cracks are therefore beginning to appear.

 Questions in November and December of 2015 by yours truly about the Bank of Canada and the construction of the Infrastructure Bank were brushed off or simply ignored.

Then we have the CETA, a dodo bird like investment agreement, revived by the creation of a European court of unknown jurisprudence to replace corporately controlled tribunals and signed in Belgium with still some reservations within Europe and some huge hurdles to be passed there; but here in Canada our Government will gladly give the “farm” away to Europe. Our provinces will go along with it because they are being bribed by the federal government with compensation for losses.  Will these compensations be annual or one time and who is going to pay for them?   It is unclear but either way it is a sellout of our country and surrender of our sovereignty to international corporate whims and profits.  Sunny days?  Right!  

 Did you vote for this?

 How many Canadians are aware that we have our own public bank, the Bank of Canada designed and mandated to finance infrastructure (and more)?  A bank used between 1935 and 1974 to finance the period of the greatest growth and prosperity in Canada’s history?   A period of low inflation and low national debt?  It is generally thought that Trudeau senior was responsible for the change from the BOC to international bank loans, but in fact it was the then governor of the BOC, one Gerald Bouey, who agreed to the BIS demands and agreements. At that time our National debt was a mere $22 billion owed basically to ourselves through our own bank.  Today that debt is over $1 trillion and growing with a tail of compounding interest rates that are in fact the largest payment any federal government has to make every year.

 Trudeau junior, instead of reinstating the Bank of Canada as our primary source of finance, along with his corporate Minister of Finance is going to create a new privately owned bank. The Infrastructure Bank of Canada.  The necessity for this bank does not exist, but the need to surrender our commons or rapidly diminishing resources to the corporate world apparently does.  The result is that investors in this new bank will expect a profit worthy of their investment which means a 7-9% interest, most likely compounding at that. The only way this interest can be paid is to surrender the ownership of the infrastructures created or repaired to the Infrastructure Bank which will charge for the use either by tolls, usage fees or entry fees.  Thus the commons such as roads, bridges, water, sewage, garbage collection and recycling will then be owned by corporate interests through the new bank. One wonders how this will work when and if CETA comes into effect and Europeans can compete with the Infrastructure Bank for the right to provide those services.  Can you imagine the court claims?

 In comparison, the Bank of Canada charges a minimal rate without any ownership claims and when their expenses have been paid it returns a dividend to the government, or at least it used to when it was being used to carry out the mandate created by the Bank of Canada Act of 1935.

 We can blame Stephen Harper for his desire to destroy Canada expressed in 2006 or Justin Trudeau for the continuation of that path , or we can blame ourselves for allowing them to do what their corporate masters tell them to do.

 Who benefits from turning Canada into a corporation controlled state?   You can be sure that the answer is not the people of Canada, or at least not those who are part of the so called 99%.

 If this is what you want for your children and grandchildren, then you will be happy. 

If you do not want this then look to the Canadian Action Party which has steadfastly stood not only for the return of the Bank of Canada as our source of finance, the protection of our commons and our environment but also for the people of Canada. 

We have no corporate ties and are only answerable to you.

 

Join us at http://www.actionparty.ca and have you say in the future of Canada.

 

Jeremy Arney