Call to stop Keystone XL

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

No you want to smear an entire federal party for what one former provincial NDP leader is doing in his  job with the feds and outside any relationship with the Manitoba NDP.

I don't need to "smear" the entire party. They discredit themselves by their silence and their cosy relationship with Doer.

 

You're crying over spilt milk. You should have voted for the real anti-NAFTA party back in '89 and '93.

Too late now, though. So let's scapegoat on one guy, Doer, he's handy. And never mind the rest of the sellouts in the two old line parties who were actually paid under the table for their stoogery. It was a done deal decade ago sans Doer or any other former NDPer. Let's give full credit where due, shall we? Didn't think so. No thanks, youre full. Don't be afraid to speak up about these things, because I'm not. Smile

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Doer is the current spokesman/salesman for Canada's stake in Keystone XL - why are you deflecting criticism away from him, Fidel? And why doesn't the NDP speak out against him?  Vested interest? Undecided

Fidel

We can follow the big money straight back to the bagmen and corrupt politicians in the two old line parties over the last 50 years or so.

Doer is a bit player. He's down there lobbying them to take what already belongs to them legally through NAFTA and other crooked deals over the years. 60% of the oil production has to go to corporate America - it's in writing and NAFTA dispute panels there in the good ol' USA where Canadians can count on a fair shake, for sure for sure. 

Blame the little strangler from Shawinigan and Lyin Brian, John Manley etc for signing the stupidest trade deal in history. It's like being shackled to a building billowing odd puffs of smoke here and there with cutter charges set to go off by remote control from CIA field offices over there in 7WTC.  I think our past and currently corrupt stooges in federal power deserve about 90 percent of the credit for this colonial-extractive economy we have today in general. It's not our country and never was. We were renters in our own land decades ago, and I think we should admit to that reality. Who are we fooling referring to Canada as a real G8 economy and sovereign country? It's ridiculous. Gary Doer didn't sell you or the environment down the Mississippi,  come on.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

More deflection. He's the current Keystone shyster, and because he has an NDP past, you steadfastly refuse to allow criticism of him.

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:

More deflection. He's the current Keystone shyster, and because he has an NDP past, you steadfastly refuse to allow criticism of him.

Not Doer, the NDP. This is all about spinning blame from Doer to the NDP, a party which he is no longer part of. This is about assigning guilt by previous association, as if Doer is just another corrupt old line party candidate rejected by voters and boosted to the red chamber by default, or accepting positions on corporate boards after the dirty deed was done while in federal government. As if that is typical of NDPers who leave politics.

Observe the feeble smear of the NDP @ post #2 . He's feebly attempting to link Gary Doer, a former provincial NDP leader, with the people and NDPers speaking out against the tar sands.

And he's about 17 years too late, because NAFTA was signed and sealed by Jean Chretien, John Manley, and dozens of Ottawa lawyers who signed NAFTA as is in 1994. They lied. And I think some people here are still feeling betrayed and so much so that they feel they have a new scapegoat in little Gary Doer. They are way off the mark though. 

I voted for the party that spoke out against the very crooked trade deals in several elections and continues telling Canadians that NAFTA needs renegotiating as well as there being a dire need for made in Canada national energy policy. 

It wasn't Gary Doer who sold the environment to Exxon-IMPERIAL and the fossil fuel industry - they were federal LIEberal and Tory Governments in Ottawa who did that and while you weren't looking apparently.

IOWs, you can't have made in Canada national energy policy when it's being dictated to you from corporate board rooms in America. Is the fact that we have no national energy policy and are restrained from creating one at Gary Doer's feet? I don't think so. 

Who did you guys vote for in '89 and '93 anyway?  Innocent Go on, speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Why are you defending Doer? He is the CURRENT shsyter for the Keystone project! Get with the program.

Fidel

Clinton, Baird talk Keystone

Clinton says Keystone XL decision by year-end

Quote:
"We are leaving no stone unturned in this process and we expect to make a decision on the permit before the end of this year," Clinton told a news conference with Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird.

John Baird? WTH? Doer must have been on holiday, and Baird is the standby colonial administrator in charge of snivelling and grovelling to U.S. power. But nobody knows for sure what so many Tories are doing in Ottawa. Why does Canada need a permit for Canadians to pay the Yanks to take it off our hands, like our corrupt stooges did when giving away TransCanada Pipeline decades ago? I think they get liquored-up when down there in Warshington and get really generous with the oil and lumber and whatever else the colony has in cornucopia reserve. Hell, Canada doesn't need it - we're sitting on their oil and their timber, massive amounts of hydroelectric power etc to be raided at will by corporate America. Our corrupt stooges made sure of it long ago.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Apparently, since no one has yet provided a link to the NDP taking Doer to task for promoting the Keystone project, the NDP must regard him as untouchable.

Fidel

Nothing on the NDP's web site except to say that we shouldn't be shipping raw natural resources south to be processed and creating tens of thousands of jobs in Texas at the expense of workers here in the northern colony. Oh ya, and the NDP's energy policies will put Canadians first. That would be a refreshing change for the better.

What's afta NAFTA?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, that was the first place I looked, then Google. Criticism of Doer is here on rabble.ca, though:

Ambassador Doer: Stop lobbying for the Keystone XL pipeline

excerpt:

Today the Council of Canadians joined with the Indigenous Environmental Network and Greenpeace Canada to send a clear message to Gary Doer (Canadian Abassador to the U.S.):

Message to Canada's ambassador to U.S.: Stop lobbying for Keystone XL pipeline

(same article as first)

ACTION ALERT: Ambassador Doer - Get your facts straight!

excerpt:

Increasing numbers of people are concerned about the impacts of the proposed pipeline which will cross important water sources including the Ogallala aquifer, tar sands contributions to climate change and it's social, human right and environmental consequences in Canada.

Gary Doer sells oil sands from coast to U.S. coast  (G&M)

excerpt:

Since becoming Canada's ambassador to the United States in late 2009, the former Manitoba premier has travelled from the Carolinas to California, and to most points in between, to make the case for the oil sands.

 

 

The NDP to remain credible on this file need to address Doer's role in Keystone XL, and not be afraid to criticize publicly someone who is a former NDP Premier.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

They could start by having at least one lousy backbencher publicly endorse the September 26 action against the Keystone pipeline in Ottawa, referred to in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/call-stop-keystone-xl#comment-1275502]post #1[/url], above!

(see the list in post #2)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It's hard not to think the NDP have zero credibility on Keystone XL when it's so difficult to find any criticism from the NDP for the prime propagandist of the project who just happens to be a former NDP premier. Frown

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Well, even if they don't want to denounce St. Gary by name, they could at least throw their support behind the protests against the Keystone XL.

But of course they don't want to, because they actually support the tar sands obscenity. It creates JOBS for Canadians, dontcha know. And they don't want to alienate the sucky trade unions that support the tar sands for that same reason.

Fidel

I voted against FTA and NAFTA when I voted NDP in '89 and '93. I gave up crying over spilt milk some time ago. Too late for that now. About 17 years too late. The Libranos sold your national energy policy and the environment to Exxon-Imperial and multinats years ago. Apparently some of us missed the announcement. I'd hand yas some tissues but I'm all out. 

Death and loss  is a difficult thing to deal with in life. It's never easy. The Libranos and their other sellout cousins, the Tories, should perhaps have offered seminars on loss of sovereignty and colonial-extractive economics sometime back in the late 80s-early 90s or so. There are very many Canadians who are still traumatized by the issue and still in a state of denial over those mega-losses/sellouts with CUSFTA and NAFTA. But we must forge on and live in the present not the past. There is still hope for the future. There is still time to vote NDP. But it's a window of opportunity that won't last forever. There is still time to vote for Canadian interests before we end up freezing in the dark and reciting principles to ourselves. As Tommy once said, we may well wakeup one day to just trickles of water from our kitchen taps. That day will come as surely as the most profitable crude oil and natural gas was siphoned off years ago and nothing to show for it after too many years with Ottawa stooging it up for their rich American friends.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I agree 100% - we got shafted with NAFTA and other trade deals. No one excels at trading like the USA*. As for voting, the only time in my life I ever voted Conservative was for Bill Davis provincially in Ontario (1968 I think) because as Education Minister he was great.  I think (can't recall really) I voted Liberal around the time of Trudeau in the 1970s federally**. But after that it was mostly for the NDP until I moved to Quebec and have voted BQ - they were the real alternative to Mulroney here at the time. Then, sometime in 2000's I voted Liberal federally because a friend of mine was the local candidate and he is a really great guy - a legend here on the coast. When he lost, I switched to Pierre Ducasse. When he moved, it was back to the BQ - as I said, I didn't see the Orange Wave coming.

 

*I think because the USA is our main trading partner - and they take the majority of Canadian resources and products by a wide margin - Canadian politicians actually in Government are spineless and terrified of being cut off from the US market, so they basically gave away  the store and the keys.

 

**Back then in the 60s/70s I wasn't into politics much - mostly sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Cool

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Right now they're (USA) in competition with China and India, but I believe upthread you were talking about quite a few years back, which is also what I was referring to.

Fidel

Boom Boom, I don't buy that excuse for selling out with FTA-NAFTA. There is absolutely no reason for our corrupt politicians to have feared losing access to US markets. For one thing, it's energy, and their's is the most energy intensive and most wasteful economy in the world.  And America is going to need Canadian the oil that is situated in Canada for a long time and whether they decide on conservation and efficiency and green economy or to continue their wasteful ways.

1.  Canada has, or at least should have maintained the right to bargain on energy prices and supplies. It's perfectly in line with free market principles for a country to bargain and trade freely with other countries. NAFTA has nothing to do with bargaining or trading freely or even gauranteeing access to US markets. Energy is energy, and our's is not a supply that the Yanks could replace easily. They can go bargain hunting all they want, but right now they are in competition with China and India and other countries for world supply. Competition and bargaining on price and supply are all natural to free markets and free trade in the real sense not what the Yanks manage to sucker our corrupt stooges into signing.

2. As I was saying about the USA, they are our natural geographic trade partners just as Cuba was during the Batista years. It makes sense to sell our oil to the US. But as Maurice Strong said in 2001, Canada owes an obligation to the rest of the world to help corporate America wean or wien? itself off of cheap Canadian fossil fuels. If we were to pay attention to real free market and economic principles in general, we should never run out of oil in Canada. Let me repeat, WE SHOULD NEVER RUN OUT OF GAS OR OIL IN CANADA if our stooges were to demand market prices for our natural resource exports. It's a principle of economics whereby supply should always dictate price. And with dangerous climate change a going concern around the world, Canada has an obligation to the rest of the world to include cost to the environment in the price.  No Yanquis will freeze in the dark and especially not if we push and prod them into creating a sustainable national energy policy themselves by insisting on free market principles and free trade in general. Our corrupt stooges will never take that approach though.

Fidel

#3. Canada has always been the USA's number one export market. We buy whatever it is they make from our oil byproducts, plastic widgets etc. Canadians are their best customers for like 50 years running. There is that side of the issue as well - they can't afford to lose our business either. Iggy and Harper are both aware of this fact yet they continue to acquiesce. We have to do something about fossil fuels and emergency reserve requirements, otherwise there really will be Americans in the Northern states and Canada freezing in the dark. Our corrupt stooges really do have us on a road to serfdom.

We must insist that they play by free market rules and trade freely, because our actual liberty and freedom to live with heat and lights depends on it. We can't afford to live in their near future world. No way. The Yanks have some real clever people down there too and must start listening to them. 

deb93

From the NDP website:

"Recognizing that oil and gas will continue to play a prominent role in our energy mix in the medium term, we will discourage bulk exports of our unprocessed resources and encourage value-added, responsible upgrading refining and petrochemical manufacturing here in Canada to maximize the economic benefits and jobs for Canadians. "

Nothing says the NDP doesn't support oil sands development. It's very unlikely that any party that aspires to power in Ottawa would openly oppose the oil sands as it would be political suicide. Not sure why, then, that Gary Doer is being criticised as he's not violating any NDP policy.

I'm not a fan of the oil sands or the pipeline though.

Fidel

They want to be able to blame the NDP for what the Harpers do in government, and for the NDP to shoulder the blame for what the Liberals did in selling the envioronment to Exxon-Imperial etc by 1994. They aren't dealing with reality.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

They want to be able to blame the NDP for what the Harpers do in government...

Well, if the Official Opposition doesn't actually oppose, then why shouldn't they shoulder their share of the blame?

It's certainly never stopped you from holding the Liberals to account for what Harper has been doing for the last five years!

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

They want to be able to blame the NDP for what the Harpers do in government...

Well, if the Official Opposition doesn't actually oppose, then why shouldn't they shoulder their share of the blame?

It's certainly never stopped you from holding the Liberals to account for what Harper has been doing for the last five years!

 

We've just had a funeral for Jack. But no need to worry, because the NDP will do more opposing in the first month back than the Liebranos did in all of their time in phony opposition to their conservative cousins in Ottawa. Mark my words. This is the largest opposition party ever elected in Ottawa to oppose a phony-baloney majority government. So sit back, relax, and let the NDP show you how a real opposition party goes to work.

And try not to fret so over NAFTA - what's our's is their's long time ago. By 1994 in fact. I'd suggest voting NDP because you are so unhappy about that cold fact, but I know it would be a lesson in frustration. Perhaps some smelling salts are in order. It's 2011 not 1989 or even 1993, and you've been asleep at the switch for too long. You wouldn't believe what's happened between then and now. I think this could be a wakeup call for a lot of Canadians. I sometimes didn't appreciate early am wakeup calls when I worked in remote parts of Northern Canada. But sometimes it's hard to ignore the first the sun shining in through the flaps of the tent. Sometimes that angel whispering sweet nothings in your slumber begins shouting in a rough, whiskey kind of a voice: It's time to drop your cocks and pull-up your socks - it's daylight in the swamp!

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I guess they don't call it babble for nothing.... [img]http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Fidel

The NDP fought FTA and NAFTA when it mattered in 1989 and 1993. Carrot Top and Washington took Chretien and dozens of federal lawyers, and Canadians in general for all we were worth. Yeah they really pulled the wool over your eyes when you weren't looking.

Canada's Liberals are prolific liars. They lied to Canada's Parliament and all Canadians back then, too. It's what they do.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

So show me where the NDP is promising to abrogate NAFTA when they form the government.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

So show me where the NDP is promising to abrogate NAFTA when they form the government.

 

The NDP is for renegotiating NAFTA toward fair trade and trading freely. We need labour and environmental rights introducing to the deal that was mainly a corporate-friendly agreement between countries and very little to do with free trade. 

But this baloney that implies Canada will be able to stop production of oil and energy exports to the U.S. is simply not dealing with reality. A comparison can be made with the setup between Russia, Ukraine and Europe for Russian natural gas. The infrastructure supplying Ukraine and Europe was in place decades ago. Our corrupt stooges did the reverse and signed away large rights to access our own fossil fuels, and they signed them away well before any future pipelines or prospects for refinery jobs were negotiated dictated to us. The NDP at least wants some of those jobs in Canada and unionized higher paying jobs at that.

And now Ukrainians and European countries are dependent on Russian energy by previous agreements. The Russians will not cutoff supplies, but they can haggle on prices. Our corrupt stooges don't even want to do that. When pressed they will admit that Canada is in the driver's seat as far as energy exports to the U.S. are concerned. They don't believe in free trade or trading freely. Like they handed 99-year leases to US lumber companies for our best timber decades ago, our stooges are front and centre when it comes to guaranteeing US corporations full access to our raw materials at bargain basement rates. 

But this baloney that says we can somehow completely reverse the damage done in 1989-94 is unrealistic. I don't have time for silly talk, and neither do Canadians in general. Get real fcs.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Right. So NAFTA, like NATO, can be reformed and turned into a Good Thing?

The reformist social democrats think they can take any pig and "reform" it by pasting lipstick on it. They never saw a capitalist atrocity that they didn't want to make into a kinder and gentler form of exploitation and death. Will they abolish the GST? No, they'll make it "fairer". Will they abolish public funding for religious schools? No, they will make excuses to continue the practice. Will they stop sending Canadians to fight in imperialist wars? No, but they'll only support the "humanitarian" ones like Serbia, Libya, and Somalia. Will they hold a full public inquiry on the G8/G20? No, they will hope the issue goes away. Will they pass legislation to require companies to provide decent pensions for employees? No, they will strengthen the Canada Pension Plan instead. Will they shut down the tar sands? No, they will promote a "Made in Canada" policy so that the tar sands will provide petroleum to Canadians to burn, instead of Americans. Will they repeal the security certificate laws and other security measures that are routinely abused by CSIS and the RCMP? No. Will they change Canada's uncritical support for the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, such as the illegal blockade of Gaza? No. Will they get serious about alternative energy and reducing carbon emissions? No, they will bring in carbon trading and hope the capitalist market can solve the problem.

And so it goes on. Canada under an NDP government would be pretty much the way it is now.

MegB

Here's a radical idea: let's abandon the pissing contest and discuss ways in which we can further mobilize an effort to stop this project.

Fidel

So when will you be racing down to Venezuela to tell Hugo Chavez that he's an evol social democrat for exploting the Orinoco oil sands? At least they are able to control the production. Why? Because even their corrupt stooges before Chavez didn't sign them up for a stupidest in world history trade deal. 

Just admit it, our Libranos were and still are a bunch of corrupt stooges. It's a basic truth.

And the Anderson our former Liberal minister of stepping-up carbon emissions said in the 2000s they were pressured by big oil not to listen to government scientists, and they didn't know what they were talking about. He said they were coerced by Exxon-IMperial and friends. Yeah we know, it's hard to avoid the kick-back and the graft and the payoffs

Get real, y'mañana. Your rabid anti-NDP rhetoric was wearing thin some time ago.

Fidel

Agreed. But whatever it is we want to reduce exports to, corporate America still wants 60%. It's in writing. Signed sealed and delivered long time ago. I suggest that the NDP propose that Ottawa not approve of anymore new oil sands projects. The pipelines are another thing. They've got a phony majority for four years. 

MegB

[quote = Fidel]

Agreed. But whatever it is we want to reduce exports to, corporate America still wants 60%. It's in writing. Signed sealed and delivered long time ago. I suggest that the NDP propose that Ottawa not approve of anymore new oil sands projects. The pipelines are another thing. They've got a phony majority for four years.

The US violates NAFTA and existing WTO treaties on an ongoing basis.  There is little beyond political will and insouciance that prevents Canada, ie, we Canadians, from collectively crushing this monstrous thing.  Any of this shit can be argued in Int'l Court, and even successfully.  Canada doesn't stand a chance from an economic POV - the US is our major market - but Int'l support might be more helpful. 

Fidel

Rebecca West wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Agreed. But whatever it is we want to reduce exports to, corporate America still wants 60%. It's in writing. Signed sealed and delivered long time ago. I suggest that the NDP propose that Ottawa not approve of anymore new oil sands projects. The pipelines are another thing. They've got a phony majority for four years.

The US violates NAFTA and existing WTO treaties on an ongoing basis.  There is little beyond political will and insouciance that prevents Canada, ie, we Canadians, from collectively crushing this monstrous thing.  Any of this shit can be argued in Int'l Court, and even successfully.  Canada doesn't stand a chance from an economic POV - the US is our major market - but Int'l support might be more helpful. 

 

This is absolutely correct, even though I had to lookup the word 'insuzyance'.

I think the NDP looks at it in the way that NAFTA could easily be renegotiated and even abrogated if it came down to that. Ottawa is holding a big hand in any free trade negotiations that could take place if they possessed the political will to actually pursue our sovereign rights to bargain and trade freely. They do not, however. 

I don't want Americans in the Northern US to freeze in the dark anymore than Canadians. It's why we must pursue conservation and efficiency so that as many Northern USians and Canadians have the right not to freeze in the dark for as long as possible. And we need to invest in alternative energy science in the mean time. The US is our natural geographic trade partner just as the U.S. is for Cuba and vice versa. We are all interconnected and interdependent with one another and must collectively decide to do the right thing. Otherwise we will be putting undue pressure on future generations to make hard choices. Otherwise we will be staring into the abyss sooner than necessary.

Roscoe

Fidel wrote:

Agreed. But whatever it is we want to reduce exports to, corporate America still wants 60%. It's in writing. Signed sealed and delivered long time ago. I suggest that the NDP propose that Ottawa not approve of anymore new oil sands projects. The pipelines are another thing. They've got a phony majority for four years. 

Is it not the amount of exports that cannot be reduced? If Canada produces more product, they do not have to share that production with the Americans, they only have to maintain the amount of volume.

Ottawa has no jurisdiction in  oilsands projects. Its a provincial responsibility. The federal responsibility is in regard to interprovincial or international trade.

I agree with Spector. The BC NDP government of the late 1990s was the instigator of the current gas drilling bonanza in BC. When a party forms government, the reality of providing services and providing the funding for those services takes a lot of the wind out of lofty social engineering goals.

The BC NDP did a rather creditable job of governing from the right - not from choice but from necessity.

Better job than the present Nebraska governor who is busily criticising the choice of pipeline route without admitting that his government, by legislation, is in complete control of the route selection approval process.  

MegB

I agree Fidel.  "Renegotiating' is out of the question.  Just do it, and let the 'negotiations' go on for however long it takes for economics and society to destroy the arguments.  That's what the US does.  If they set the bar so low on trade agreements, who are we to take the so-called 'high road'?  The only other recourse of the US would be to take military action, and that wouldn't happen.

They don't play by the rules they agree to, for the sake of their own interests.  Why should we, at our expense?

Fidel

I think what I was trying to say is that certain things, once they are in place and operational, are difficult to stop. As much as we dislike CAN-AM policies for this, that and the other thing, ultimately there are ordinary people and their lives involved. Once an energy supply is opened up and guaranteed for so many people, you can't just cut it off in an instant and say too bad so sad to hundreds of thousands of people and families heating their homes and going to work everyday in an economy that is obsolete and still call yourself a socialist. You can't decide to one day shut down peoples' lives like that. I don't even think David Suzuki is suggesting we freeze frame peoples' lives like that. The good policies have to be deicided on and enacted, and it takes time.  A good start will be to stop any new oil sands projects and work on all of the other necessary things to make the carbon economy go away in time. We're behind the eightball decades ago, and we can't afford to screw around anymore.

MegB

Good point.  But there are so many ways to create jobs, rebuild economy, with new energy that the arguments of transnational corporations fall flat.  They will always export jobs to where the salary line is lowest in their budget.  As you know, that's what they do best - exploit the labour market at its most subsistence level.

Push aside morals, and you can develop a clean energy industry that employs people and meets market standards of living - and improves upon them in ways that can only benefit the market, in general.  It makes sense, whether you are a socialist or a capitalist, because if you understand the mutual benefit to the individual, it works.

Fidel

Roscoe wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Agreed. But whatever it is we want to reduce exports to, corporate America still wants 60%. It's in writing. Signed sealed and delivered long time ago. I suggest that the NDP propose that Ottawa not approve of anymore new oil sands projects. The pipelines are another thing. They've got a phony majority for four years. 

Is it not the amount of exports that cannot be reduced? If Canada produces more product, they do not have to share that production with the Americans, they only have to maintain the amount of volume.

Ottawa has no jurisdiction in  oilsands projects. Its a provincial responsibility. The federal responsibility is in regard to interprovincial or international trade.

I agree with Spector. The BC NDP government of the late 1990s was the instigator of the current gas drilling bonanza in BC. When a party forms government, the reality of providing services and providing the funding for those services takes a lot of the wind out of lofty social engineering goals.

The BC NDP did a rather creditable job of governing from the right - not from choice but from necessity.

Better job than the present Nebraska governor who is busily criticising the choice of pipeline route without admitting that his government, by legislation, is in complete control of the route selection approval process.  

 

I blame the electoral system. Parties are vying for 4-year terms, and most people just want jobs. Any party that decides to take a stand on climate change is doomed by an uncompetitive electoral system producing governments that have few political choices but to deal in the short term.

Canadian energy is all there in the NAFTA deal. Provincial governments can tweak taxes here and there, but even that is a straightjacket setup where if big business doesn't like the tax setup, they can move to the province next door starving for jobs and investment. Neoliberalism is all about impotence at the federal level and leaving provinces to fend for themselves in neoliberal Darwinian fashion. It's the new laissez-faire since 1980 or so, and it's bankrupting governments around the world for sure. That's by design.

6079_Smith_W

And the difference with this project is that there is actually a movement against in it in the states, which goes across party lines. It would be different if it were something that was entirely off their radar.

 

MegB

The jobs thing is always a ruse.  How many times does some transtrash multinational have to promise jobs for gov't subsidy (our tax dollars) for a scant few months before they pull out and use the capital loaned to them by our gov't to set up shop somewhere where labour conditions are so foul as to allow the lowest wage (and production cost) possible?

This dirty oil they want to pipe down to the US is way expensive to extract.  Are they really going to pay a living wage to NA workers to extract it?  Will Canada remain in control of the means of prodution?  Hell no.  In addition to the environmental disaster the project will cause, it will further destroy the NA, specifically the Canadian, economy by moving the fundamentals of processing offshore. That is the only way they can create a significant profit margin with our dirty expensive oil.

Fidel

Rebecca West wrote:

Good point.  But there are so many ways to create jobs, rebuild economy, with new energy that the arguments of transnational corporations fall flat.  They will always export jobs to where the salary line is lowest in their budget.  As you know, that's what they do best - exploit the labour market at its most subsistence level.

Push aside morals, and you can develop a clean energy industry that employs people and meets market standards of living - and improves upon them in ways that can only benefit the market, in general.  It makes sense, whether you are a socialist or a capitalist, because if you understand the mutual benefit to the individual, it works.

 

That sounds good to me, Rebecca. But is creating jobs really a goal for neoliberals? Politically its a good idea for them to do so in regard to winning over our votes. Or they can maintain the economy on life support and barely doing their jobs in government. Because if there exists a perfect storm whereby most countries are in recession or experiencing slow growth rates as a result of their bad policies on finance and banking, then it's kind of acceptable to maintain higher rates of unemployment. And as economist Michael Hudson says about it, the neoliberal business model now says that debt equals wealth creation, and it is Orwellian. And public debt is premium debt. They don't have to pour concrete for foundations of new factories. They can simply sit back and live off compound interest on public and private debt. It's a very good situation for capital actually, says Hudson and others. And the best part is when our corrupt politicians decide that all that debt is valid, due and payable to capital. At which point they "suddenly realize" the debts are so enormous that they become too large to service, and we must handover the commons and natural wealth and public enterprise to capital in payment for bogus debts. It's the con of the century, but it's what they are doing none the less.

Fidel

Oh sure, and they have financed quite a few projects that were money losers as far as taxpayers are concerned. It's another form of corporate welfare. The oil companies are still very powerful and maintain lobbyists in Washington and in Ottawa since Mulroney.

The other side of it is the bankers and financial capitalists, money speculators etc. They've managed to convince Obama and Bush before him that they are the job creators and want bailing out to save the economy. In fact, they are the ones who've orchestrated the offshoring of jobs and means of production. And they want America and Canada to be unable to pay the bills, or at least put on lots of weight with public debt in the mean time. Then our politicians in government can make a case for pawning the family jewels and silverware to their rich friends if only to relieve government of small portions of principal debt. Neoliberalism is a vicious cycle of impoverishing economies and removing powers of resource allocation from elected governments and in effect handing it over to non-elected bankers and the financial oligarchy. And in 1989 and '94 our guys tied Canada's economic wagon of fortunes to that economy.

Roscoe

Rebecca West wrote:

The jobs thing is always a ruse.  How many times does some transtrash multinational have to promise jobs for gov't subsidy (our tax dollars) for a scant few months before they pull out and use the capital loaned to them by our gov't to set up shop somewhere where labour conditions are so foul as to allow the lowest wage (and production cost) possible?

This dirty oil they want to pipe down to the US is way expensive to extract.  Are they really going to pay a living wage to NA workers to extract it?  Will Canada remain in control of the means of prodution?  Hell no.  In addition to the environmental disaster the project will cause, it will further destroy the NA, specifically the Canadian, economy by moving the fundamentals of processing offshore. That is the only way they can create a significant profit margin with our dirty expensive oil.

Uninformed peevish gibberish.  In my area, untrained youngsters are being put into million dollar machines because there is a critical trades shortage. Every dump truck and tanker along with many other types of trucks are working 24/7. Environmental engineering companies, surveyors,civil engineers all looking for staff. The education industry is fully involved trying to educate new workers.

All at oilfield rates that pay a labourer 12k/month or more. Union rates hover around $45 per hour.

The investments by Big Oil are a bright spot in an economy that has little going for it. Big Oil always pays too much for what they do by virtue of internal processes that do not allow for economies at the field level, meaning that equipment, contractors and workers are paid at full rates for waiting while other trades accomplish their tasks. There are literally billions of dollars flowing to local economies and, by extension, government revenues.

Its so busy that a second $38 million dollar waste remediation facility is needed. Contaminated soils are trucked hundreds of kilometers to centralised facilities under the supervision of environmental engineers.

Future exports of oilsands product, conventional oil, gas liquids and dry sales gas will provide Canadians with financial benefits for decades. Benefits that will pay for government services like education and healthcare that Canadians have grown to feel entitled to.

These projects will go ahead because Canadians want these benefits. There are solutions to potential environmental challenges as there have always been solutions to various challenges through the ages. Climate change cultists refuse to allow for any positive change but fortunately, the majority of Canadians exhibit more common sense.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Roscoe wrote:

These projects will go ahead because Canadians want these benefits. There are solutions to potential environmental challenges as there have always been solutions to various challenges through the ages. Climate change cultists refuse to allow for any positive change but fortunately, the majority of Canadians exhibit more common sense.

Propaganda alert.  Have you seen those great commercials showing how the oil sands are actually a very green project?  Your posts remind me of them.  

6079_Smith_W

Really Roscoe?

Well in the first place we don't really know because Keystone was approved by the National Energy Board, not parliament.

Secondly, some polls indicate the federal policy on fossil fuels isn't actually what the people want:

http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/poll_suggests_harper_governmen...

And thirdly,  if the oil is being pulled out of the ground, what is the "common sense" and "financial benefits for decades" if it is being shipped raw to the states and Canadian jobs, taxes, and manufacturing revenue goes with it?

And decades are a long time I guess.... I might be dead by the time those riches dry up. On the other hand, I might not.

We have the same problem here in Saskatchewan with our government giving potash away for nothing. At least we have the pleasure of knowing we will be getting screwed out of royalties for another 300 years before it all dries up and the industry packs up and goes home.

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Brian Topp weighs in.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Meanwhile, Harper 'confident' Keystone pipeline to proceed

 

excerpt:

A large anti-pipeline demonstration is planned for Parliament Hill next Monday, September 26.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

U.S. Oil Giants Poised to Gain on Keystone Pipeline
 
excerpt:
 
Shell is more than doubling its refining capacity-from 275,000 to 600,000 barrels of oil a day-at a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Port Arthur is one of two destinations for oil that would be shipped via Keystone XL. That refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia. The final destination for the additional oil refined at Port Arthur remains to be seen. But the connection between Shell and Saudi Aramco is galvanizing environmentalists.

Roscoe

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Really Roscoe?

Well in the first place we don't really know because Keystone was approved by the National Energy Board, not parliament.

Gee, you make "National Energy Board" sound like its part of the Tea Party. Try reading an entire report.

Secondly, some polls indicate the federal policy on fossil fuels isn't actually what the people want:

http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/news/article/poll_suggests_harper_government_out_of_step_with_canadians

'Some polls' may be haunted by freepers while the greater majority of Canadians are too busy getting on with their lives to obsess about vague environmental concerns that may or may not be justified.

And thirdly,  if the oil is being pulled out of the ground, what is the "common sense" and "financial benefits for decades" if it is being shipped raw to the states and Canadian jobs, taxes, and manufacturing revenue goes with it?

The problem is that Canada has neither the financial or manpower capacity to build upgraders. In a perfect world, upgrading will be done in Canada but considering the volume of oilsands product coming on stream, we must be prepared to share upgrading while maximizing Canadian upgrading capability. In the next 25 years, oilsands efforts will add $2.5 trillion to Canada's GDP and povide tens of thousands of jobs sourced nationally, if not internationally.

And decades are a long time I guess.... I might be dead by the time those riches dry up. On the other hand, I might not.

Face it. Canada is a resource nation, not a high tech provider on a global scale. PhDs want to live close to the beach, not in Moose Jaw so, in order to fund our public services and social programs, we need to generate wealth somehow. It would be great to see Canada become a world leader in information technology and innovation but it ain't happening. 

We have the same problem here in Saskatchewan with our government giving potash away for nothing. At least we have the pleasure of knowing we will be getting screwed out of royalties for another 300 years before it all dries up and the industry packs up and goes home.

Its not bad at all. My POT shares are providing a handsome return. Try investing in the resource rather than standing around with your hand out. Royalties are only one component of returns to owners. There is a huge difference between owning a resource and generating a return on that resource - it takes money.

 

 

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Roscoe wrote:

'Some polls' may be haunted by freepers while the greater majority of Canadians are too busy getting on with their lives to obsess about vague environmental concerns that may or may not be justified.

Channeling the Mayor of Toronto's talking points now?

6079_Smith_W

Roscoe wrote:

 Try investing in the resource rather than standing around with your hand out. Royalties are only one component of returns to owners. There is a huge difference between owning a resource and generating a return on that resource - it takes money.

I'll ignore the insult about handouts.

You seem to be confusing companies and their investors with who it is that actually owns the resource - the people of the province

(not to get into the far larger issue of who ULTIMATELY owns the resources)

Most companies (though of course not all) have to pay a fair price for the goods and resources they profit off of. That includes royalties, and not leaving the province with a big cleanup bill. 

I think you have it backwards. As a shareholder you are the one getting a free ride that comes out of my tax bill. So I am afraid it is your hand in my pocket.

As a matter of fact, that company you are getting dividends from was built by our tax dollars and sold off for short-term profit.

And I didn't make any comparison between the NEB and the Tea Party. My point was that since they are an unelected body, and the decision to approve Keystone never went to parliament, you don't have any grounds to claim that the decision represents the will of the people of Canada.

 

 

Pages

Topic locked