Call to stop Keystone XL

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#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. 

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 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 [b]oppose[/b], 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!

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 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 [s]negotiated[/s] 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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Meanwhile, Harper 'confident' Keystone pipeline to proceed

excerpt:

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

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.

 

 

 

 

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.