Canada open for business but closed to criticism

An interesting article on the position taken by the Harper Cons by Nathan Lemphers, which appeared in a column in Troy Media on Jan 12

 

While calling foul over environmental "ideology," Oliver ignores the ideological underpinnings of his own government

January 12, 2012
ALGARY, AB, Jan. 12, 2012/ Troy Media/ - Apparently Canada is open for business but closed to criticism, no matter how constructive. This is the clearest conclusion that can be drawn from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s open letter to Canadians, in which he attacks advocates of responsible oil-sands development as “radicals” and dismisses the concerns of thousands of Canadians who want to have a say in the decision of whether to build Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The $6.6-billion project would run two parallel pipelines carrying diluted bitumen and condensate along a 1,177-kilometre route linking the oil sands in Alberta with the remote port of Kitimat on the northern B.C. coast. The pipelines would traverse hundreds of salmon-bearing rivers and streams, the mountainous and landslide-prone terrain, the Great Bear Rainforest, and the territory of more than 50 First Nations.

Federal government isn’t listening
The joint review panel public hearings that have just begun aim to determine whether the project is in the interest of Canadians.

But recent statements from the Harper government indicate it is not interested in listening to the concerns of more than 4,000 Canadians who have signed up to speak at the hearings. Forget the democratic process and ignore the obligations of due diligence and harm prevention inherent in Canada’s environmental review process – as Oliver states, “For our government, the choice is clear.”

In fact, the minister’s letter makes one wonder if he spends any time at all listening to those Canadians who care about environmental protection and responsible resource development. Dismissing opponents of this project as “ideological” and opposed to all major projects, Oliver ironically ignores the ideological underpinnings of the Harper government’s consistent efforts to pit economic growth against environmental protection. 

The two objectives don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The Pembina Institute has long argued for responsible oil-sands development – and we’ve done our due diligence to map out 19 policy solutions that could move Canada closer to that goal. But rather than fulfill its duty to ensure environmentally responsible oil-sands development, the Harper government has preferred to engage in the “bait and switch” PR manoeuvres of the “ethical oil” crowd.
A pipeline rupture along the mountainous interior B.C. route and a supertanker spill in the waters off the Pacific Coast are two significant risks associated with this project. The government’s refusal to acknowledge and address those risks – let alone demonstrate how it would propose cleaning up the potential damage and compensating the British Columbians whose livelihoods would be affected – is irresponsible.

Canadians deserve a government that is willing to listen to their concerns about our current course of energy development and take those concerns seriously. Interfering in due process (particularly for a project of this magnitude, and one in which so many Canadians have a legitimate interest in the outcome) risks more than the integrity of our natural resources – it undermines the basic principles of a democratic society.
The government has also been outspoken in its criticism of “foreign intervention” in the Gateway hearings – that is, input from environmental advocates outside Canada. But a quick bit of number-crunching by Environmental Defence shows that the government is overstating the case: Of the 216 interveners registered to participate in the hearings, not one represents an environmental group from outside of Canada, while 10 represent multinational corporations.

Forty First Nations from B.C. and Alberta make up the largest single block of registered interveners, and of the 4,522 people registered to make 10-minute oral presentations at the hearings, 79 per cent are British Columbians.

There certainly may be room to improve the efficiency of the regulatory approvals process for energy projects in the future. But standing up for Canada means ensuring that energy developers don’t profit from extracting our resources and degrading our environment while Canadians are stuck paying for the cleanup bill. This is quite contrary to the Harper government’s apparent desire to bulldoze any opposition to the government’s oil-sands-development agenda – especially when that opposition emerges from within our borders.
Minister Oliver states that, “Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination. It must be based on science and the facts.”

We couldn’t agree more, and can’t help but point out the troubling disconnect between the minister’s call for a “dispassionate” and “objective” approach and his government’s blatant political interference in the process.

Consider the risks
Remember the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer? The fact is, such a disastrous spill could easily happen here, too. Canada’s environment commissioner recently warned Parliament that pipeline regulators were being too lax in their efforts to ensure safety, pipeline integrity, and environmental protection. And our research into the risks of transporting oil-sands crude by pipeline along the Gateway route shows that neither the Canadian government nor the project’s proponent, Enbridge, is prepared to deal with the consequences of a worst-case-scenario spill.

Canadians are right to be concerned about the costs and risks associated with this project. The hearings kicking off this week are designed to ensure that the government takes those concerns into account before rushing this project ahead.

Too bad the government doesn’t seem to be in the mood to listen.

Nathan Lemphers is a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, a national non-partisan sustainable energy think-tank.

Source:  Troy Media

Modern Aging: Know the 10 signs of Alzheimer's

By: SHERRY PETERSON, KATIE GILSTRAP, published in the Richmond Times dispatch on December 10

 

Many of us will be visiting parents and other aging family members this holiday season. And while preparing for those visits may include cooking, wrapping and packing, it also might include familiarizing yourself with the 10 warning signs of Alzheimer's disease:

• Memory loss that disrupts daily life. People with Alzheimer's often forget recently learned information.
• Challenges in planning or solving problems. They may have trouble following a familiar recipe or tracking monthly bills
• Difficulty completing familiar tasks at home, work or at leisure, such as using a microwave.Confusion with time or place. Losing track of dates, seasons and the passage of time.
• Trouble understanding visual images and spatial relationships. Difficulty reading, judging distance and determining color or contrast.
• New problems with words. Struggling with vocabulary, problems finding the right word or calling things by the wrong name.
• Misplacing things; unable to retrace steps.
• Decreased or poor judgment. Changes in judgment or decision-making.
• Withdrawal from work or social activities. Removing themselves from hobbies, social activities, projects or sports.
• Changes in mood and personality. The mood and personalities of people with Alzheimer's can change. They may develop very specific ways of doing things and become irritable when a routine is disrupted.

If you notice any of these signs, encourage your loved one to schedule a doctor's appointment as soon as possible. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or other dementias will help your loved one get the maximum benefit from available treatments as well as offer your family more time to plan for the future.

For information on Alzheimer's disease and support resources, visit liftcaregiving.com.

A good site for job hunters

For all the job hunters out there, in Canada United States,  - I wanted to share a site that Lynne found and passed on to us http://www.glassdoor.com/

 If you type in your city, you can then look for a job from the exact location to a range of 100 miles. I did a search for my town, Port Coquitlam and the site showed 76 jobs. I did a search within 10 Kilometers and it showed a total of 168 jobs posted within the last seven days. Each employer can be viewed for details about what it is like to work there, salary, etc. 

There are reviews by employees rating companies (as what it's like to work for them). Just use common sense when reading them, just like any other reviews (for instance, someone posted a review of a MA based restaurant chain in MI - not even close to where the restaurants are located!) I wonder when they will branch out to countries. other than Canada and the US This is a good idea as any job search should require doing background on the company one is applying.

The pipeline debate heats up

As we move into a very interesting period of discussion and debate over the idea of a pipline between Alberta and BC I would like to point out how at the very early stages the Neo-cons are using the rules of disinformation to their advantage. A quick Google review of some of the stories shows how this technique is working. I suspect that over the next months, we will see all of the rules of disinformation put into play over this issue by the government of the day The rules they are using are in bold the news articles with sources are in italics. As I get more examplesof how the government is using these techniques,  I will post them. The problem as I see it is the progressive movement will feel the need to counter the disinformation rather than staying the course and keeping the focus on the needs of the environment, the First Nations, and the people whose lives will be affected if this pipeline is allowed to go through.

Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

The issue of Ethical Oil is the start.  The ethical oil campaign began with Ezra Levant, a political activist and lawyer with close ties to government. For the record, Levant is a former tobacco lobbyist and a convicted libeler. He is also a political extremist who has demanded the jailing of Greenpeace leaders. (Greenpeace, a civic organization with 3 million members, has poked fun of Alberta's one party petro state. The Saudis, by the way, fear transparency and accountability and don't like Greenpeace either.) Source: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/

The Ethical Oil idea started bby Levant is now touted by  Alykhan Velshi. Who is Mr. Velshi you may ask, well here is some background on the man.

You've got to hand it to Alykhan Velshi: for such a tender age, he seems to be remarkably well-versed in the dark arts of spin and misdirection.

Many people outside of Alberta believe the Canadian state's tar sands industry to be the most environmental destructive energy extraction industry in the world. But not Velshi, a 27-year-old neocon political communications adviser, who, until a few months ago, was the right-hand man to Canada's immigration minister. This week, he has relaunched a website aimed at extolling the virtues of, ahem, Canada's "ethical oil".

The term "ethical oil" was first coined two years ago in a book by a conservative activist and pundit called Ezra Levant. But Velshi has picked up the term and, well, not just run with it, but sprinted off towards the horizon at a pace that would shame Usain Bolt. Click on to EthicalOil.org's new homepage and you soon get a taste of Velshi's reasoning as to why Canada's tar sands industry is so virtuous raised by a neo conservative think tank that has ties to  Environmental groups say the Harper government is engaging in diversionary tactics aimed at tarnishing the image of pipeline opponents and deflecting attention from the serious risks posed by the project. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jul/28/oil-tar-sands-canada-ethical

While most Canadian environmental groups are charities and must disclose the sources of their funds, Ethical Oil does not. Ms. Marshall said that the group accepted money from only Canadians and Canadian companies, although she declined to directly say if that included Canadian corporations controlled by foreign entities. Many of the large energy companies active in the oil sands are foreign-owned or -controlled.  “You can look up the definition of a Canadian company,” she said Source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/oil-sands-foes-are-foes-of-canada-minister-says/

Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.  Example:  Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has slammed "environmental and other radical groups" campaigning against the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal to connect Alberta's oilsands to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C.

"Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth," said Oliver in an open letter published Monday. "They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources." Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/09/minister-spills-ink-over-pipeline-opposition

In his letter, Mr. Oliver declared that Canada’s regulatory system was “broken” and suggested that reviews could be done in a“quicker and more streamlined fashion.”

His letter does not outline suggestions for how that can be achieved, and his office did not respond to requests for comment. But representatives of several Canadian environmental groups said they believed that the government planned to severely restrict public input on environmental assessments.

But last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper also suggested that foreign interests were taking over Canada’s regulatory process Source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/oil-sands-foes-are-foes-of-canada-minister-says/

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. For Example, In an interview Monday, Mr. Oliver deliver a blunt message – that the independent panel reviewing the Gateway pipeline should not allow foreign-backed opponents to hijack the hearings and kill the project through tactical delays. He goes on to say in a CBC interview Environmental and other "radical groups" are trying to block trade and undermine Canada's economy, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Monday.

Oliver's comments come one day before federal regulatory hearings begin on whether to approve Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which would deliver crude from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat, B.C., for shipment to Asia Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html

Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact, which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. For example, Minister Joe Oliver singled out a Canadian charity, Tides Canada Inc., for channelling U.S. donor money to pipeline opponents, while the Prime Minister’s Office took aim at the Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council. Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/for-the-harper-government-the-gateway-must-be-open/article2296804/

Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. For Example While Oliver took aim at foreign funding for environment groups, foreign investment is a major part of the oilsands. American, British, Chinese, French and Norwegian companies have all invested in the oilsands. The difference, Oliver says, is that Canada needs the foreign capital.

"They’re helping us build infrastructure to help us diversify our market. Other groups are trying to impede … the economic progress; they’re trying to block development; they’re trying to block projects which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in government revenue and trillions of dollars in economic development. That’s the fundamental difference. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html "

Silence critics. (This appears to be our current governments favourite tactic)  If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. Example:  Sources say the government isn't just talking, CBC's Margo McDiarmid reports, but will be targeting environmental groups when the House finance committee reviews charitable funding next month.

The committee could recommend changing the rules to stop them from getting U.S. money. Sierra Club's John Bennett says he's worried. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html

An environmental umbrella group wants Ottawa to reverse a decision to pull its funding, though the government says the move is necessary during a time of fiscal restraint.

The Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) received notice Thursday that it would not receive $547,000 in core funding that the government had previously said it intended to provide.

Olivier Kolmel, the chairman of the organization's board of directors, said Ottawa did not give any warning that it would cut off its funding next year. Source: http://community.ebay.ca/topic/Canada-Town-Square/Harper-Stops-Funding/3000002474