Tag Archives: NAFTA

NAFTA Nonsense

It was with some pleasure that I learned on Friday 31st August Canada had not succumbed to the bombastic, belligerent President of the USA and agreed in haste to the bilateral agreement between Mexico and the US.  IT is not clear to me that a bilateral agreement between the USA and Mexico within the borders of NAFTA is entirely legal, not that that would worry President Trump at all.   The fact that he would play one country against another has a familiar ring of a reality show to it and really has no place in the real world where actual peoples’ lives and wellbeing are the stakes.  Typical of him I think.

 

The complaint is that Canada has not treated the US in a fair way due to softwood lumber and our supply management system.  From my reading and understanding of NAFTA there should be no tariffs between the three countries and of course, we already know that this has been broken not only in the case of the softwood lumber but also in the steel and aluminium trade.  Clearly, this man has no idea what an agreement is and perhaps that is why I hear so often that he has defaulted on more business contracts than he has fulfilled.

 

While the USA complains that our softwood lumber is subsidized by some form of stumpage, let us also remember that the agricultural sector of the USA is heavily subsidized by their Federal government. It seems that there is an equal amount of wrongdoing here and the pot is calling the kettle black.  Concerning the supply management system, this could be amended perhaps provided that the products coming into Canada meet with Health Canada and our agriculture standards.  Health Canada, of course, will bend over backwards to the US on most issues and really needs to grow a backbone and remember that the health of the Canadian people is their priority not the health of American corporations.   For the dairy sector, it still amazes me that we are the only species on earth to drink the milk of another species and expect after it has been treated and reduced in any beneficial way that it is good for us.   Cows eat grass – we do not.  Cows’ milk is basically a bovine growth hormone designed by the creator to make calves grow faster.  Some small wonder then that we have too much obesity in our population.   There are alternatives available such as hemp milk, coconut milk and for a while before it became GMO contaminated soy milk etc., and yet these are largely ignored because the dairy lobby is too powerful and like most corporate ventures is interested in protecting their toxic products and the profits derived from them.  Real milk is, of course, illegal and those who produce it are prosecuted, while those selling pasteurized and then artificially fortified again stuff are protected.   Makes no sense to me.   When I was young we were drinking real milk with cream still within it and my immune system is fine thanks.

 

As for the lumber, we should not be exporting any lumber which is hit by a tariff and indeed here we can and should be exporting to other markets.  We send a vast amount of raw logs overseas when we should be sending finished lumber instead.  A byproduct of this would be the return of sawmills and employment that go with them. If we stopped sending lumber to the states how long would it be before their construction business came to a huge slowdown?  The idea is not to hurt the ordinary American but to send the message that a product is sold at a certain price and if that is not agreed upon then it will not be sold.  The basic rule of commerce – there must be a market and a buyer who is willing to pay the price asked for that product.

 

There were many things built into the original FTA and then accepted into NAFTA that were not good for Canada, and yet Trump in his self-righteousness forgets that we cannot reduce the percentage of any petroleum products we produce and send to the US even if we run short ourselves, nor can we increase the price of electricity across the border without both our PM and the US president agreeing to such a price increase.  This means that BC is exporting hydropower to the seven western states at the same price which was in effect when WAC Bennet was premier of BC prior to the FTA came into being.  Now, who do those two alone benefit? Certainly not Canadians.

“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;

 

The Americans want to do away with the dispute mechanism and so does any Canadian who is tired of paying huge sums of their tax dollars to America corporations which see perceived profits lost because of our environment or health standard laws. This also includes Canadian companies which incorporate in Delaware because it is cheaper and gives them access to the dispute review panel – Lone Pine Power of Calgary is a perfect example of that to the tune of $250 million.  There is never an amount allotted in any budget for these tribunal awards probably because all governments want to hide them.  This government wants to keep on paying them it appears.

 

It has been my contention that ALL corporations with Canadian subsidiaries doing business in Canada, such as Coca-Cola or Pepsi or MacDonald’s, should have accounts in Canadian banks in Canada and pay taxes on their gross income before their profits are sent to the US or the Cayman Islands. Also, Nestles should not be allowed to draw as much water as they can from Hope Lake without charge and bottle it and send it south of the border in plastic bottles for profit.  Arrowhead water for Walmart. How did that come about anyway?  Is it part of NAFTA that we should give away our water for free and have it sold for profit elsewhere?

 

America’s problems do not stem from NAFTA but from their inability to control their corporations allowing them to set up manufacturing in countries where the labour costs are cheap and bringing those cheaper products back to the homeland.  The constant demand for profit for their shareholders and the need to pay obscene bonuses to their CEOs etc. demand that they cheat as much as they can and they do.   That is not a NAFTA problem it is an American corporate greed problem.

 

Now I hear that that man is tweeting again that Canada is an enemy of the US and it would appear that we are a greater threat to the US than Mexico, China, Russia and Korea combined.  If this is the way you treat a friend then I do not want to be a friend to his administration and their twitter diplomacy.  It frankly stinks of the president’s bigotry, racial and religious hatred combined with the love of an apartheid State of Israel and a grandiose assumption that he can do no wrong and everyone else is at fault.   What a way to rule a country.

 

Do we really think that those Americans without a job, without a roof over their heads and no money for food for themselves or their family think he, a fat cat with no shortage of wealth, pomp and grandiosity is serving them well?

 

Bring on the peaceful revolution.

 

Cancel NAFTA too. 

 

Give him his wish and let’s charge what we need for our products.

 

Now I learn that this egotistical, racist, bigot is telling Canadians what is and is not of political importance to us.  Perhaps he should spend more time looking in the mirror instead of pouting at the cameras.  His efforts to create strife amongst his allies could just cause us to tell him where to go unless of course, the apartheid State of Israel tells us not to !!!!!

Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.

Mark Twain

 

 

I came across this quote the other day tattooed upon a young man’s leg at Operation Trackshoes at UVIC, and it struck me as rather pertinent to politics generally and particularly those in the Canadian House of Commons and Senate.

Let’s face it, the constant squabbling, backstabbing and partisan jabs that take place are indeed laughable.   The concept that debate, questions period and most members statements should be taken seriously are indeed laughable.  Debate in the House isn’t debating any more it is reading prepared statements in a restricted time frame and does not represent the opinions, desires or requests of the people of Canada which no longer matter, indeed they have not mattered for aeons.

These petty statements about the previous or current governments, their failings, shortcomings, or absurdity is laughable.  When a member of the previous government complains about something done numerous times by their government now being done against them it is not constructive but laughably petty.   Is this what we pay them for?   When the current government complains that the previous government didn’t do something that is also petty and indeed laughable. Again is that what we pay for and demand?  Do we demand anything from those who we pay so well to represent us?  Is democracy really alive and well in Canada? Again that concept of laughter shows what a mockery the Canadian Parliament has become, and we have lost that ability to laugh long and loud at their pathetic proceedings.  If we can rediscover that ability to laugh at and mock these overpaid caucus puppets just maybe they will feel as stupid as they appear and make some effort to change and actually represent us, but do not hold your breath, laugh instead!.

 

A perfect example of this is the so-called oral questions, or question period, held daily in the House of Commons.  This has become an exercise in open personal slandering under the guise of asking a question and then naturally being given a completely “non-answer” response.  If this sort of behaviour had occurred in the schools I attended as a youth I would have been disciplined immediately.  However, these “children” get away with it every day.  We have been conditioned to accept this as serious not as a joke and so we forget to laugh out loud at this behaviour by these adults.

 

Instead of taking them seriously we must start to laugh at them.   How long will they continue to act this way if they understand they are being treated as jokes?

 

Currently, we have a problem with the President of the USA and we take what he tweets or says seriously. Like any bully or a bad-tempered ignorant man he cannot stand to be laughed at, and yet no one does.  Witness the recent meeting of the G7 prior to which Trump complained that Russia should have been included when he is front and center in creating sanctions against that country and could he really want to face Putin across the table?  I doubt it. Yep, that is truly laughable to think about.  His blustering, lack of courage to say face to face what he thinks, to be stated later in some stupid tweet is indeed the sign of a bully.  Why are we simply not laughing in his face?  What can he do that he is not doing already?  He alone is causing chaos all around the world, not face to face but by caustic tweets and sanctions.  Those are the actions of a real man?  

The way our government reacts is submissive.

NAFTA should be scrapped, we should refuse to export our lumber products there and put tariffs on everything from chewing gum to Boeing aircraft made in the USA.  The way to deal with a bully is not to surrender to his bluffing, but to respond in like manner. Turning the other cheek leads to a second bruised cheek.

 I hear the cry that we cannot survive by doing this and that our economy will collapse.  What nonsense.  Our economy has been recently created to revolve around oil, and now we have put ourselves in a position where we are dependent on the USA buying our oil – especially our bitumen -, refining it and sending it back to us as a finished product at a huge profit to them.  Yes, we have backed ourselves into a hole through FTA and NAFTA but that hole is our own doing as we continue to keep NAFTA on the basis that we need it to survive. 

Really? 

How well did we do prior to FTA?  How well did we do before we gave control of our resources and economy to foreign entities? How well did we do before we succumbed to the siren call of globalization?  How well did we do before we hamstrung our farmers or sold off our shares in CWB, CP or CN or Petro Canada?  We have the ability to trade with the world but we have tied ourselves to the scraps that the USA passes our way. 

That is economically sound?  Laughable indeed!

 We need to be able to laugh at ourselves too and understand that we are soo much more than we currently have become.  I learned early on that if I was not able to laugh at myself and my foibles then I could not expect others to laugh when I made fun of them.

 Laughter is very powerful and as Mark Twain said it conquers all.   We should remember to try it more often, and more importantly, teach our children to laugh too.

 When you stagger out of bed tomorrow look in the mirror and smile, and you will get an instant response from your image and I guarantee it will make you feel better and might even have you laughing out loud with your image if you let it.

 

It is OK to wake up laughing so why not laugh all day long at those who deserve it, including yourself?

 

Jeremy

Foreign Affairs and a useless Pipeline

22nd April 2018

 

To the right honourable Chrystia Freeland,

Minister of Foreign Affairs for Canada.

 A few simple questions for you:

1

As a result of two people being poisoned (?) in the UK which was promoted, without proof, as being done by the Russians, you expelled some Russians from Canada without any proof that they had any part in this event nor that they had done any harm to Canada.

Where was your mandate for this Minister, or was it simply that your instructions came from Israel, the UK and the USA and fitted with your obvious hatred of Russia?

Should your job not be to create goodwill between Canada and all the other countries of the world Minister, rather than follow the dictates of others?

 2

Concerning NAFTA.   Have you agreed to swap the elimination of Chapter 19 for the elimination of Article 605 of this investment agreement?

As long as they are both in force we are in double jeopardy.

Article 605 clearly states that we cannot ship any Bitumen anywhere in the world except the USA.    They have been given 100% of our production and if we try to ship any anywhere else we will be taken to a tribunal under NAFTA chapter 19 and all of Canada will have to pay for this.

Has the Minister of Finance agreed that he will be able to pay as there is nothing in his budget about it?

 3

Re Kinder Morgan and their pipeline to Burnaby:

We are told many misleading “facts” in the House as in the emergency debate which took place on 16th April.  We were told ad infinitum by two of the five parties in the House that the product of the “oil” sands are what is at stake here, and yet although I wrote to every MP asking for help to determine where these “oil” sands are located as yet I have not had a single reply. The job figures that are floated are almost identical to and as mythical as those promoted by Joe Oliver concerning the Northern Gateway pipeline.

We are also told that there will be two large tugboats travelling with these super bitumen tankers which indicates that even those in favour of the bitumen pipeline acknowledge that there is a risk of damage and spillage.  If that does happen where will this (these) supertanker(s) be towed still spewing dilbit enroute?  Where will these super tugs come from and who will pay for them?   Have you told the endangered pod of the Southern Orcas that they will have to hide from the noise of these three large ships twice a day?  Do you have the approval of the State of Washington concerning the potential damage to their part of the ocean and coast?

To which countries do you intend to send these giant bitumen tankers anyway even if it contravenes Article 605 of NAFTA?

 4

Where is the proof that the Syrian government used gas on civilians even though they were winning that part of the domestic, but foreign instigated and inspired, war and had no need for such use?   Where is the logic from their point of view?  Why did you not wait for the inspection by the UN to take place before you jumped in to condemn Syria?

 5

When are you going to reprimand Israel for their soldiers using playing Palestinian children for target practice?   Perhaps you personally and your government agree that this was alright, but the vast majority of Canadians do not agree with you.

 6

Will you take a year to answer this email as you did my previous request for information about CETA, and the then TPP, concerning some definitions in those investment agreements allowing“enterprises” (corporations)  of a foreign country to have equal rights as “persons” here in Canada?

Well, screw you Donald.

9th April 2018

Ever since America as a country came into being there has been one thing that has been in their favour and that is superior numbers.   From Custer’s 7th Cavalry famous for slaughtering old men, women and children and then getting their comeuppance from actual warriors in Montana to the huge number of men carrying guns in WW1 and WW2 acting a bit like ants; just keep on swarming until the opposition is smothered. Stubborn resistance from the strategic defence in Korea and Vietnam lead to the equalization of those numbers but oh the number of Americans and civilians who were sacrificed in those defeats!   Volume again now in nonstop battles around the globe all designed to make the USA the all-powerful self-proclaimed determiner of who should “rule” which country.

So I heard that Donald demanded that the new NAFTA deal be on his desk by 1st May 2018 in at least an MOU.   Damn it Donald you told us you were going to scrap it, and I at least fell into the trap of believing a business man of ill repute but extreme wealth who could see the advantages of scrapping NAFTA because of Mexico and their low cost of labour etc.,   I thought he could see too many changes he could make with Canada to his advantage, and indeed he could, but actually Canada if it was, in fact, an independent, democratic, sovereign country would be only too happy to tell Donald now that he is reneging on his threat that WE give you 6 months and WE are out of NAFTA.  

American business can see the financial problems with them not being able to control us and so they too want NAFTA to remain.  It amuses me in a sad way that our negotiators believe that they have turned those businesses in Canada’s governmental favour forgetting that they too, just like our politicians’ own handlers are only interested in profit.   Mind that I said Canada’s government, because it is their opinion that we should be subservient to Washington and bow their every need. 

We the people do not believe that, do we?   We believe that our relationship should be with the American people even with all their warts (not that we don’t have them too), and that we can and will get along people to people and business to business without all this chest banging, tribunal challenges and protectionism, with mutual respect.   Strangely this could well happen if we could just get the money lenders, politicians and manipulators and toy soldiers out of the way and talk to each other as fellow humans. 

The cynics among us will say “not going to happen” and maybe they are right; as long as we have wishy-washy leaders around the world, who change their minds and promises as fast as they change their socks (or at least as often as they are told to)  then we will have to do it ourselves.

The first step in my mind is what the Canadian Action Party has promoted for years and that is that NAFTA must be done away with.

The image of the FTA cartoon of the day showing Reagan on a rearing white stallion with Mulroney following on a hobby horse saying “we won” still rings so true today.   Trump Towers and the White House against a dilapidated cat urine smelling PM residence allowed to sink into a pathetic symbol of Canada’s long gone democracy and sovereignty.

There is no way The USA will change article 605 of NAFTA, and apparently, no way the Government of Canada is willing to stop those absurd lost profit tribunal claims against us and instead insist that the investor-state claims chapter be kept in place.

So, Donald, shut up or put up because we can’t do it ourselves anymore and NAFTA really should go the way of the dodo bird.

Jeremy

 

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;

 

 

 

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.”

Site C Dam

Here is my presentation to the BCUC on 11th October 2017:

 

My name is Jeremy Arney a resident of North Saanich.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you and welcome back into the Site C fray.

I wish to acknowledge the Songhees upon whose territory we are meeting.

 

You have heard the financials for BC Hydro and I will not go into those except to say that I am well informed of them by Eric Anderson of Gabriola Island who I believe presented to you yesterday, and it is only by fancy and deceitful accounting that the 80:20 ratio is maintained in order for a yearly dividend to be paid to the province by a virtually bankrupt BC Hydro.

The question here is: Do we need Site C and if so why?

In my view, we do not.

Over the last few years, the demand for electricity in BC overall has declined in spite of BC Hydro forecasts that it would increase.   Dams built in conjunction with the Columbia River Water Control Agreement have served us well and it is my understanding that additional turbines could be fitted to these dams without affecting that agreement and of course more hydro could thus be generated should we require it.

We also have the environmentally disastrous and seasonal only operations called the run of the river projects from which BC Hydro has been obliged by the previous government to purchase their power at a higher rate than that for which they can sell that power either to Alberta or export it to the USA.

In that regard two points:

The State of California has designated our run of the river projects as environmentally unsound and “not green” and therefore will not purchase hydro from them.  On January 15th 2014 the California Energy Commission found that our Run of the River projects did not conform to the California Renewable Energy Resources Act.

Then there is the FTA and now NAFTA article 605 which states that we (Canada ) can increase our percentage of energy exported to the USA but we cannot reduce it and any price change upwards must be agreed to by both our PM and the US President.   This means that the promotional price set for 20 years by WAC Bennet of the Socreds is still in effect today as FTA was signed within that 20 years.   Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs who has taken the renegotiations of NAFTA away from our Minister for Trade has shown no signs of wishing to even consider this and so it will not change.

One of the stated needs for Site C was for more power to be transmitted to Petronas, which has now pulled out of the infamous LNG production, and for mining companies such as Imperial Metals at Mount Polley Mine and probably the Red Chris Mine as well. Since both are already operating why do we need more hydropower for them?

One question as to the actual safety of the Site C is that the banks which are supposed to hold the “lake” are not stable and should the worst happen and the Site C collapse will it take out the other 2 downstream dams and how far into Saskatchewan will the resulting torrent of water flow?

There is no proven need for this dam and the cost of refurbishing the area is lower than that of completion.

Now is the time to stop it, and I urge you to do just that.

Thank you.

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……