CFN- Ezra Levant’s myth, “Ethical Oil” is currently receiving a lot of publicity as part of the Canadian and Alberta Governments’ push to sell Tar Sands oil to the US and China. The myth’s premise is that it is OK to buy Canadian Tar Sands oil, because it comes from an “ethical” source, but not OK to buy oil from most other sources, such as Saudi Arabia, despite being far cleaner and easier to produce, because of, among other things, “human rights violations.”One of the reasons Saudi Arabian oil is so unethical, according to Levant, is that women in that country are not allowed to drive. However, is Levant really concerned about the welfare of Muslim women, or is this just a convenient excuse? One thing he doesn’t go into is whether or not it is wise to allow any woman wearing a niqab (the Muslim face covering) to engage in any activity requiring good vision, especially peripheral vision. Would he still be of the same opinion if burkha or niqab-wearing women drove their Hummers outside his children’s school as the kids were finishing their day?

This justification for the Tar Sands poses interesting ethical dilemmas for Levant himself, which he does not touch upon in his book. Levant has shown himself to be anti-Muslim – he got himself a lot of publicity for publishing the Danish cartoons, and criticizes Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi for both his policies and his religion.

In 2010, Levant planned to accompany American ultra-right wing and anti-Muslim extremist Ann Coulter on a speaking tour of Canadian universities, which was cancelled at the last minute because of alleged “security issues.” Coulter herself commented that had she worn a burka, she would have been safe.

Also, as pointed out in an earlier article, Levant faced disciplinary action at the University of Alberta for, among other things, his attitude towards hiring women, so why is he so suddenly interested in the plight of contemporary Saudi women?

Is Levant honestly interested in the predicament of women in Saudi Arabia (or even civil rights anywhere in the Muslim world), or is this merely an excuse to promote the interests of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ members and the Conservative Party in their efforts to bolster the Chinese economy? Keep in mind that CAPP and some of its members made a questionable donation of $180,000 to the Harper Government in 2011, during a first ministers’ energy conference.

With the United States’ rejection (at least for now) of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the Texan Gulf coast, the Harper Government is now focusing on selling surplus Tar Sands crude bitumen to China.

Although China has become economically as capitalistic as the best (or worst, depending on viewpoint) of the western world, it remains under Communist control, and has some of the worst human rights abuses anywhere. Tibetans routinely suffer persecution, as does any minority ethnic group that promotes separation.

.

.

China also has the highest rate of capital punishment anywhere in the world. In 2008, China executed 1,718 people – the total worldwide for that year was 2,390 – far in excess of the number of Saudis who were beheaded.Why would Mr. Levant be pushing to export vital, unprocessed natural resources to any  country with this sort of record? The obvious answer would be that he is more concerned with profits for the big oil companies (Exxon-Mobile routinely makes about $10bn each quarter) than human rights, whether in Canada or abroad. It seems he would rather sell Canadian natural resources at cost price to a place where human rights are only a distant dream, and which is starting to contribute more than any other country to climate change.

.

CFN – With the Harper Government now proceeding at full throttle to push through the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to supply China, an unexpected crack has appeared within the governing party’s ranks. Calgary West Ultra-Right Conservative MP Rob Anders is publicly questioning the proposal to sell Canadian “Ethical Oil” resources to non-ethical Communist China, despite Ezra Levant’s invention of the ethical oil mantra becoming official government policy.

Earlier this month Sun News Network reported Anders as speaking out against the Chinese takeover of the MacKay River Tar Sands project. Anders condemned the sale of project to China, whom he describes as “the world’s worst human rights abuser.” However, in keeping with government policy, he still considers Tar Sands oil as “ethical”, but describes the Chinese as being an “unethical client.”

Anders, a staunch anti-Communist, vetoed an all-party resolution in the House of Commons to grant Nelson Mandela Honorary Canadian Citizenship, claiming that the South African leader was a Communist and terrorist. He has claimed that the Chinese Government has tried to set up “unattractive male Conservative MPs with hookers”, and has compared the 2010 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics. However, despite his anti-Communist, pro-human rights feelings, Anders stopped short of condemning the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which will export unrefined Tar Sands bitumen crude to China.

In 1994, Anders worked for Far Right Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe as a professional heckler(!) and was labelled a “foreign political saboteur” by CNN. Inhofe is a prominent science denier, who benefits from major campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, and the electric utilities.

 

Tar Sands Crude Vital for Chinese Economy

The Chinese, as part of their shopping list for worldwide natural resources and energy sources to fuel their economy, recently closed a deal with the Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation. The MacKay River plant currently produces 35,000 bbl of crude bitumen per day, but this is scheduled to increase to 150,000 bbl per day in a four-phase expansion project. As part of the same deal, PetroChina will also be taking over Dover Oil Corporation’s Tar Sands operations at the end of 2012, which will bring the total production under Chinese control to approximately 400,000 bbl per day when the MacKay River expansion reaches completion.

The pipeline, from the Alberta Tar Sands, will cross the Rocky Mountains and Northern BC to a proposed super tanker facility at Kitimat, BC. The pipeline has provoked major criticism from Canadians and people worldwide because of its potential for ecological damage to the area through which it will pass, that it is “dirty oil” insofar has it has an even greater global warming impact than regular crude oil, and for the long-term economic damage it will do to Canada.

Given that the pipeline will have a maximum capacity of 525,000 bbl/day, it will easily be able to transport the entire Chinese portion of total Tar Sands production to China. This will give the Chinese economy a major boost compared to the West – as the Chinese government will take all the profits from the MacKay River and Dover projects, they are, in effect, buying the oil for the cost of production, and not the much higher world price, giving them a major competitive advantage. However, what is not well known is that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be two parallel lines – one transporting the bitumen to Kitimat, the second (with a capacity of 325,000 bbl/day) carrying light natural gas condensates from the coast to the Tar Sands.

Normal Tar Sands bitumen cannot be pumped through a pipeline as it is simply too thick. To make it economically transportable, it must either be upgraded into a lighter, less viscous synthetic crude, which would require refining facilities in Alberta, or it must be thinned out with a much lighter hydrocarbon fluid (a diluent) – hence the second pipeline.

The light natural gas condensates will be imported from Mexico or OPEC sources, and would therefore not fit under Levant’s category of “ethical oil.” Although the Chinese will be paying for the product out of their profits, it further undermines the Canadian economy – profits are reduced, and therefore the already low taxation revenue from PetroChina will also be correspondingly reduced. In addition, the cost of the diluent will reflect in Canada’s overall balance of trade – the difference in the value of what the country sells abroad, compared to what it imports. The pipeline scheme will do nothing to reduce the influence of “non-ethical” OPEC countries on the world’s energy markets.

Stephen Harper announced to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he will make it a “national priority” to export our “energy products” (i.e. Tar Sands Bitumen) to China, and make sure there are no regulatory delays. The Northern Gateway Pipeline is now official government policy regardless of the environmental, economic or human rights consequences.

Anders May Face Consequences for Criticising Government Policy

Since taking power as a minority government in 2006, the Harper Government had strictly enforced what its senior civil servants, diplomats and MPs can say to the media.  Any of these people, whether the High Commissioner to Great Britain on a speaking engagement, or a lobby-fodder back bencher at a constituency barbecue, needs to file a “Message Event Proposal” (sometimes known as a Media Event Proposal), or “MEP” through the Privy Council Office, and ultimately the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Without an approved MEP, the person is forbidden to speak. The purpose is to ensure that whoever is speaking toes the line and only promotes official Conservative Government policy.For MP Anders to have made such a statement regarding exporting Tar Sands oil to China marks a clear rebellion against government policy, as no MEP criticising any aspect of the Alberta Tar Sands would have been approved by the PMO. Ezra Levant, author of “Ethical Oil” and the Harper Government’s Tar Sands policy considers that the Chinese will start behaving “ethically” now that they are doing business in Alberta. So far he has published no reaction to the criticism from his long-time friend Anders.

CFN- Like last century’s master of propaganda, Josef Goebbels, Sun Media columnist and “Ethical Oil” creator Ezra Levant is no idiot. Goebbels had a Doctorate degree in German literature – Levant graduated from the University of Alberta Law School. Both these gentlemen used the press effectively and to their advantage (Goebbels in Der Angriff and Volkischer Beobachter, Levant in the Toronto Sun and, among others, the Cornwall Standard Freeholder). Both these people were brilliant speakers – Goebbels in front of a live crowd, where he rivalled his Führer in oratorical brilliance, Levant on Fox News North, where he has the brains to argue a point far better than his own leader, Harper.

Both Goebbels and Levant are masters of the art of propaganda, i.e. changing or concealing reality. This manipulation of the truth has always been the main weapon of extremists, whether the Nazi Party in Germany, the Communist Party, the Tea Party/Republicans in the US, or the extreme right in the British and Canadian Conservative Parties.

 

The Media is the Key

Promoting the Canadian State Propaganda Apparatus

Quebecor, owned by Pierre Karl Péladeau, has almost a stranglehold on the popular media in Canada. Among other assets, through Sun Media the company owns 43 paid or free dailies in Canada’s major cities, as well as 200 local papers (including the Cornwall Standard Freeholder). For what it’s worth, they are also the world’s largest commercial printer. In addition, they have a major stake in Canada’s broadcasting industry. They own Videotron (cable TV and Internet Service Provider), Osprey Media (newspapers, especially in Ontario), Quebec’s TVA television network, and Quebec’s largest book and magazine distributors. Most notably for Canada as a whole, they own and control Fox News North (aka Sun News Network, Pravda Canada), one of Levant’s two principal propaganda platforms.

Quebecor, although its home is a province that has proved it wants nothing to do with the Harper Government, is basically run by the Conservative Party. Among its board of directors is former Prime Minister Brian Mulrony, who perhaps bears more responsibility than anyone for the success of the Reform Party. Another concrete link between Sun Media and the Conservative Party is Kory Teneycke, a former Director of Communications for Stephen Harper. After two years running Harper’s official propaganda machine, he worked briefly for Sun Media as a “strategic communications advisor.” Later, in July 2010 he accepted an appointment as Sun Media’s Vice-President for Development.

Although he soon resigned in disgrace, for allegedly spamming an on-line petition against Sun Media, he was rehired about three months later, once the furore had died down.

A good question is why the Harper Government didn’t hire the Master himself to replace Teneycke as the government’s official Propaganda Chief. One possibility is that Harper fears the highly intelligent and wily Levant, and to give him too good a view of the inside workings of the Prime Minister’s Office might eventually come back to haunt him. The other possibility is that Levant was passed over because of his past year working for Phillip Morris International, owners of Rothman’s. Although Levant’s stint as an official tobacco lobbyist is not well known, were it to have become common knowledge, it would have been embarrassing to the government. Among other things, he lobbied (successfully) against Health Canada’s plans to increase and intensify the warning labels on cigarettes, and against smuggling (which costs the tobacco industry money) rather than funding Health Canada’s anti-smoking programs. One of his self-admitted lobbying targets was, in fact, the very Prime Minister’s Office that passed him over.

Another possibility is that he makes more money with his show on Sun News Network and his propaganda columns in the Toronto Sun, along with his royalties from books such as Ethical Oil and “Fight Kyoto – the plan to protect our economy.” Being involved at less than arm’s length with the government might also have put crimps on his latest publishing endeavour – “The Enemy Within – Terror, Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr.” Given the general conviction of Canadians towards this Toronto-born terrorist, it seems strange that Levant would bother writing a book about him, unless financial gain were a motive.

The Politics of Fear

Throughout history, kings and emperors, dictators and extremists have maintained their personal power through the politics of fear – in Biblical times, the Jews were made to fear their neighbours, as these neighbours in turn feared the Jews (still unfortunately true in the twenty-first century). Trojans and Greeks, Romans and Carthaginians, Christians, Jews and Muslims, and so on have all lived in mutual fear of each other. The Germans were taught to fear, above all else, the Jews and the Communists, just as the Russians were encouraged to fear everyone, including their fellow Communists.In order to promote its agenda, the state (used loosely) has to instill a sense of fear into the population. During most of European history, the British feared the French and the Spanish; the French feared the British and the Spanish; and of course, the Spaniards feared the British and French. Britain, although the smallest, rose to the top by skillfully balancing the two Latin nations against each other.

The big fear during most of the twentieth century has been the Communists, and to some extent, the Nazis, (although this was relatively short lived). Since the dawn of the 21st century, we ourselves fear the Muslims, and since the start of the current 2008 depression, we fear for our jobs, our homes, our families and our prosperity. All these are reasonable fears – but ultimately, what people fear the most is losing their liberty.

What Big Business and the “one percenters” fear the most is loss of profit and control, and with good reason. If we had infinite resources, and infinite atmosphere and oceans to absorb the unhappy by-products from these resources, there would be no reason to fear. Unfortunately, resources are finite, as is the world’s capacity to absorb the pollution that comes with many of them.

So how does big business, especially Big Oil, fight back to protect its liberty to override the liberties of the other ninety-nine percent? They control the government (especially in the US) through political contributions, and the media through ownership. They use skilled propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ezra Levant to persuade the other 99% that what is good for the super-rich, for Wal-Mart and Wall Street, for Péladeau, Murdoch and Black, for CAPP and the American Petroleum Institute, is also what is good for them. Through skillful manipulation of the media, people are persuaded that right is wrong, that black is white, that small “L” liberalism, the complete opposite of extremism, is a diabolical form of communism, and that the environmentalists’ true agenda is to bring us all down into a socialist stone age.

In the end, it comes down to one thing: will lies and half-truths told out of context defeat the reality of our current situation, or will the people of the western democracies wake up in time to prevent a complete meltdown of civilisation?

(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)

TO:      Cornwall Free News

RE:       Ezra Levant – Friend of China, but Foe to Canadians

            December 31, 2011

 

Editor:

Contrary to the innuendo in this article, no business connection exists between the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Ezra Levant. Nor does CAPP provide funding to the growing ethical oil movement based on Mr. Levant’s book and we did not help him with his research.

 

We don’t agree with all of Mr. Levant’s argument but when the alternative to Canadian oil is imported oil, our research says most Canadians agree a responsible domestic option is best. CAPP supports selling more Canadian oil in Canadian markets. Producers, transporters and regulators are examining options to transport oil from the West where it is produced to large consumer markets in Central and Eastern Canada.

 

CAPP does not advocate for “subsidizing” any country, including China. Companies from many countries invest in the oil sands, including Canada, United States, China, Great Britain, Netherlands,France, Norway, Japan, Korea and Thailand. There is a long history of partnerships and foreign investment to develop oil and gas resources in Canada. Access to capital is important for our industry and investment in the oil and gas sector benefits all Canadians. It’s important to remember that Canadians own the resources and government sets the rules for its development and collects royalties and taxes from its production.

 

Lastly, the forecast of increasing worldwide energy demand attributed to CAPP in the article actually comes from the consumer-based International Energy Agency, which issues such forecasts on a regular basis.

 

Janet Annesley

Vice-President

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)

Putting the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers above Canada

Exporting Western Jobs to Communist China

Wishful Thinking

It is important to note, however, that, contrary to Levant’s wishes, Canada is no superpower, either economically, militarily, or in the energy world. Although it is true that Canada is the world’s sixth largest oil producer, we are nowhere even close to the three giants, Russia, the Saudis, and the US. With our 3.9% contribution to the world’s oil supply and consumption of 87.5m barrels per day, all that makes us is the third biggest midget, with almost no influence to control or decide anything once supplies start tightening up and demand becomes critical. What Levant also forgets is the forecast demand in energy. According to his friend and official CAPP spokeswoman Janet Annesley, world energy demand is expected to double by 2050, i.e. to about 175m barrels per day. Tar Sands production is forecast to reach 3.5m bbl/day by 2025. If somehow this figure could be doubled by 2050, to 7m bbl/day, this would leave Canada with still only about 4% control over the world’s energy pie.Of course, none of the oil companies believe that oil production could ever reach 175m bbl/day – there just isn’t enough economically recoverable oil left in the world (i.e. Peak Oil). As it is, world producers are struggling to keep pace with current demands of 87.5m barrels, and as reserves (and therefore the amount of oil that can be extracted) are inexorably declining, the task is hopeless, even with the Tar Sands. However, if Big Oil were ever to admit this fact, their share prices would tumble to nothing – Shell paid a considerable fine for overstating its reserves in order to keep its share prices high.Canada’s contribution will become almost as futile as trying to save the Titanic with a portable Wajax fire pump. On the other hand, using Annesley’s guess, Canada’s current 2.2m bbl/day oil consumption would double to about 4.4m barrels by 2050. If we build the right infrastructure, (i.e. a pipeline to the east), we could have enough to be self-sufficient for the eventual transition to sustainable energy sources, without having to turn to even dirtier coal, and perhaps also have some left over for our friends in Europe and the US.

Remember too that the Titanic set sail with too few lifeboats. Levant’s wish to sell our natural resources (at less than cost) to China would be akin to putting this country’s small number of lifeboats in a yard sale.

CFN - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with his government, owe sophist (someone who argues with shrewd but intentionally fallacious reasoning) Ezra Levant a star columnist for Sun Media and the Glenn Beck Fox News North) big time, and are starting to repay the debt.

Levant’s whole career has been tied to or sponsored by the extreme right. As a law student at the University of Alberta, he was called before the Dean for going beyond the boundaries of free speech in criticising the University’s hiring policy towards, among others, women and native people.  During this period, he was deeply involved with getting Rahim Jaffer (later discredited for alleged drunk driving and coke possession) nominated as the Reform candidate in the University riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. He also took part in a summer internship program (1994) at the Charles G Koch Foundation (which would later be instrumental in founding the Tea Party). In 1995 he joined the Canadian extreme right Fraser Institute, where he advocated against trade unions, universal health care, minimum wages, and the Canada Pension Plan.

In 2002, Levant became the official Canadian Alliance (i.e. the rebranded version of the Reform Party) Candidate for Calgary Southwest, reportedly spending $15,000 to win the nomination. When Stephen Harper became the new leader of the party, he was “persuaded” to step aside in Harper’s favour so that Harper could run, causing Harper and the party to become beholden to him. In ceding the seat to Harper, he gave up, among other things, a solid $150,000+ salary and a gold-plated pension scheme, as well as immunity to libel laws when speaking in the Commons. What was the price for giving up all this in favour of an as yet untried political leader?

 

Master of Propaganda

Levant is probably the world’s best propagandist since Joseph Goebbels, having mastered the basic rules of propaganda like no other. Some of the primary rules for a successful propaganda campaign state that:

Propaganda must aim at the broad masses of the people, be in a popular form and at the lowest possible intellectual level.

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively or present the other side, but only present half the truth. Because the broad masses take in little and understand less, effective propaganda must confine itself to a very few stereotyped formulas and ideas.

One of the latest jingles to appear in the House of Commons and in the oil industry is the term “Ethical Oil”, taken from the title of Levant’s latest book. This is a neat title, and a catchphrase no one can disagree with. What can be better than obtaining oil from an “ethical source”, i.e. Alberta, when one considers the many “unethical” sources of oil?

The book received extensive critical acclaim from the right wing press. For example, Libertas Post, which claims to be “an official ‘socialist free zone’ where economic, political and individual freedoms are discussed, debated and celebrated”, highly recommends the book. (For the record, this site also includes what looks like a permanent link to Ezra Levant’s own site).

 

“The oil sands are not perfect, and criticizing them is fair game. But why has criticism of the oil sands been so disproportionately loud compared to criticism of other, larger, more disturbing sources of oil? Sources such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuala, the Sudan, China… the list of oil-producing nations, in large part, reads like a list of target countries for Amnesty International. Human rights abuses, crackdowns on citizens and journalists, environmental abuses – this is what, for the large part, Western countries like the United States have to do business with on a regular basis, just to keep up their fuel supply. Wouldn’t it be better to buy from a country without the laundry list of crimes to its name?

All this is true, and to give even the devil its due, Levant deserves credit for bringing the abuses committed in these countries to light. The Libertas Post review concludes with a snippet from the last chapter of Levant’s book:

“There can be no doubt: Canada does its best. We’re an energy superpower. And we’re an ethical superpower too, setting international standards for how we treat the environment and how we treat each other. And if our goal as moral citizens is to make the world a better place, then there is only one choice: to pump as much oil as we possibly can out of Fort McMurray.”

One point about which Levant seems unclear, however, is the reason the Harper Government ordered the Commons Environment Committee to destroy its draft report about water utilisation and pollution in the Tar Sands.

China is one of the countries that comes under justifiable criticism. Despite its importance in the global capitalist economy, it remains a communist country, portraits of Chairman Mao are on all the banknotes, and its human rights record is well known. In spite of major investments in green energy, it is the world’s largest source of greenhouse gasses and air pollution in general. Its annual growth in energy use is one of the major causes for continually rising oil prices, which were the trigger for the worldwide depression, which began in 2008. As the demand for oil overtakes supply, prices will continue to rise, until a deepening of the recession again drops the demand.

 

Let’s Give our Oil to China

However, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who are the major beneficiaries of Levant’s “Ethical Oil” book, are encouraging the construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, from the tar sands to Kittimat, BC, in order to export oil to this unethical regime.

First Nations in the area of the proposed pipeline are adamantly against the pipeline, despite the fact that this is “ethical oil.” Terry Teegee, a vice-chief for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council in the Fort St. James, BC, area, has his own views on “ethical oil” and the pipeline:

“Asia Pacific countries should know they are contributing to the destruction of our land and culture by purchasing and trading “blood oil” (as some First Nations of the Tar Sands area call it); they are contributing to the genocide of First Nations culture.  Canada is just as easily to blame since they are allowing the continued destruction of First Nations land.  The Canadian Government is not living up to the fiduciary duty they promised First Nations so many years ago.  This is why we do not want the Northern Gateway Pipeline through our territories, we have seen the legacy of the “Tar Sands” and the many Enbridge spills left behind, polluting lands and water systems.  Our people steadfastly said no to this project in 2006 and they are saying it again in 2010: “No to Enbridge Pipeline!”

Geraldine Thomas-Flurer, the Interim Enbridge Coordinator of the [BC] 5 Nation Interior Alliance also makes some very valid points:

“Indigenous peoples have been adamant in bringing to the world the issues of climate change and the role that international trade agreements play within the climate crisis that we are experiencing today….  While Indigenous peoples are fighting for cultural survival, we will continue to oppose international trade agreements that fail to respect Indigenous rights and allow for the expansion of the Tar Sands and Enbridge pipelines through our unceded traditional territories.”

 

Certainly, Levant makes a strong case for oil from many foreign countries being “unethical”. What he missed, however, or at best glossed over, is the “Blood Oil” coming out of Northern Alberta.

Canada has always had a decent record of trade sanctions against various countries guilty of human rights violations or other threats to peace. In the past, trade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) brought these countries to their knees. Currently, Canada imposes sanctions against Iran and Syria, and the boycotts on trade with Libya have only recently ended. It would make sense, then, according to Levant’s logic, that we should not encourage trade with any of the countries on the “Unethical Oil” list.

Sinopec, the Chinese state-owned oil company, is making major investments throughout the world in order to secure China’s continuing oil supply for its accelerating demand. One of the targets for their investment is the Alberta Tar Sands. Why would “ethical” Canada allow a country with China’s record, both for CO2 emissions and human rights, to access and make a profit from Canadian resources which rightly belong to Canadian?

Levant’s justification, taken from his “ethical oil” website, goes like this:

While some investment in Canada’s oilpatch may come from unethical countries like China and the United Arab Emirates, those investors know that in coming here they must play by Canada’s rules. Our oil resources are publicly owned and any producer, foreign or Canadian, earns the privilege of tapping them only if it lives up to the behaviour our public insists upon. Our second-to-none standards protecting workers’ rights, worker safety, and the environment, are the same for any operator with a license to produce oil in Alberta. The codes of conduct are just as high for Sinopec as they are for Suncor.

This is an intriguing argument, especially from someone who once won a Canadian university national debating prize. Let’s analyze what he claims.

• Workers’ rights: In other words, Sinopec has to pay the going rate for the industry, otherwise no one will work for them;
• Worker safety: They have to follow the rules imposed by the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board, just like any other company operating in the province;
• The environment: Like the other tar sands companies, as long as they don’t make their pollution too obvious, and gather up the bird kills before the federal government gets wind of it, they don’t have too much to worry about. While on the topic of the environment, the bulk of the federal government’s civil service cutbacks seem to have come from the Ministry of the Environment.

 

So why would a completely unethical oil company from one of the world’s most unethical countries submit itself to these harsh rules? The answer is simple. Profit. China is continually increasing its oil dependence, but must pay world price. If it can extract its own oil in Canada, it effectively pays only the cost of production, somewhat less than world price. As China is one of the countries threatening to cause an energy famine in the rest of the world, the big winners are the communists running China, and the big losers will be Canada and the rest of the world.

 

Ethical Oil Companies in the Tar Sands

On the subject of foreign “ethical” investment in the tar sands, the top companies are:

• BP – British
  BP brought to us, among other things, the Gulf Oil Spill (but that was certainly ethical oil, so probably it got blown out of all proportion by the liberal/socialist press).
• Canadian Natural Resources Ltd (CNRL). This is a publically traded company on both the New York and Toronto stock exchanges, so it is somewhat difficult to work out just what its “corporate nationality” is. However, according to a press release, this Calgary based company drills for “ethical oil” in both Canada and the UK, and also in the very unethical (according to Levant) region of West Africa. However, given that this oil is drilled by an ethical Canadian company, the oil must automatically become ethical the moment it leaves Africa.

• Exxon Mobil. US owned Exxon Mobil regularly reports profits in excess of $10bn each quarter. Exxon Mobile, either as presently constituted or as Exxon or Mobil, prior to their merger, have an interesting ethics record.
  The Exxon Valdez oil tanker was owned by an ethical oil company, and carried only ethical oil from Alaska. Like the BP spill, it was probably an invention of the liberal/socialist media, designed to disrupt the American economy.
  Given that it is unethical to pay taxes, as it holds back business expansion, job creation and profits, former Mobil senior executive J. Bryan Williams withheld taxes on $7m in income, including $2m in kickbacks received in connection to Mobil’s oil business in Kazakhstan (one of the unethical oil producing countries). Unfortunately for Williams’s and Mobil’s job creation plans, he was sentenced to three years, 10 months’ imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, and ordered to pay the IRS $3.5m in back taxes, interest and penalties.
  The company scored a ZERO in respect to basic human rights towards their gay or lesbian employees, according to a study conducted by Human Rights Campaign. This is probably top marks on the Republican/Tea Party scale of human rights, making them truly ethical.
• Chevron – US Multinational. According to a Chevron press release, “Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry.”
  Chevron is currently facing a lawsuit of about $10.7bn from the (presumably ethical) Brazilian Government over an oil spill which lasted four days, and which Chevron claims in its press release is now substantially cleaned up.
  The company has major interests in Nigeria, Angola, Kazakhstan and Somalia, all of which are, by any reasonable definition, sources of “conflict oil.”

Chevron, or its predecessors, have been accused or convicted of significant unethical business dealings, including suppressing street cars in order to sell buses, tires and fuel (along with GM and Firestone), tax evasion, in collusion with the Indonesian government, blocking of NiMH battery technology for automobiles, environmental damage in Ecuador, oil spills in Angola and Richmond, California, sponsoring of state terrorism in Cabinda (a province of Angola), and shooting of civilian protestors in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.

Like the Chinese Sinopec company, however, Chevron is also required, in Levant’s words, to uphold “our second-to-none standards protecting workers’ rights, worker safety, and the environment….”

• Shell – Dutch, British Multinational. Shell operates in 90 countries. In Africa these include in Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia, all of which can be considered as producers of “conflict oil.”
  In 2004 the UK Financial Services Authority fined Shell £17m for deliberately overstating its reserves. These overstated reserves would have overvalued the company in the eyes of shareholders, making them believe their investment was worth more than the reality. In 2008, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Shell had misled the public in an advertisement when it claimed that a $10bn tar sands project in Alberta was a “sustainable energy source.”
  Nigeria. In 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention. Nine leaders of the Ogoni tribe of southern Nigeria who were hanged in 1995 by Nigeria’s military rulers. The lawsuits were brought against Royal Dutch Shell and Brian Anderson, the head of its Nigerian operation. In 2009, Shell paid $15.5m in a legal settlement, although they refused to accept liability.
  In 2009, Shell was the subject of an Amnesty International report into the deterioration of human rights as a consequence of Shell’s activities in the Niger Delta. In particular, Amnesty criticised the continuation of gas flaring and Shell’s slow response to oil spills.
  In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government and know “everything that was being done in those ministries”, according to Shell’s top executive in Nigeria. The same executive also boasted that the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell’s infiltration. Documents released in 2009 (but not used in the court case) reveal that Shell regularly made payments to the Nigerian military in order to prevent protests.

 

This list of ethical oil companies, all involved in the ethical tar sands, could go on, but this should be enough to get the general idea. The question is whether these companies suddenly become ethical as soon as they arrive in Alberta.

 

Canada – an Energy Superpower

Levant claims in his book that Canada is an “Energy Superpower.” On the face of it, one can easily believe so, especially as the tar sands are the second largest reserve in the world. However, this claim flops to the ground as soon as one considers world oil production.Canada’s total daily oil production in 2009 approached 4 million barrels per day – total world daily production is approximately 87.5m barrels per day. In case you don’t want to do the math, it works out at about 4.5%. An “energy superpower”? By Levant’s reasoning, yes. We even have enough oil to spare to help the Chinese in their quest for economic domination. But in reality, as we have no pipeline to Eastern Canada, we can’t even take care of ourselves.

The next article will continue exposing Ezra Levant’s grip on our government.

Cornwall ON - Once again, the TV Consortium has decided to exclude the Green Party Leader, Mike Schreiner, from the televised leaders’ debate, to be broadcast September 27. Although other provincial broadcast consortia have (or are planning) to allow their provincial Green Parties into the debate (e.g. PEI), the Ontario consortium is following the lead of the federal consortium, which would not allow federal leader Elizabeth May to be heard.The leaders’ debate will be carried live by the CBC, CTV, Global, Sun News Network and TV Ontario. This TV consortium comprises Ontario’s major television networks, each of which will invest resources in a joint effort to offer the people of Ontario complete political coverage during the upcoming provincial election campaign.

Neither the CBC nor Global have commented on the exclusion of the Green Party leader, nor how this leads to “complete” coverage. TV Ontario, however, apparently supported the inclusion of Mike Schreiner in the debate, and has pledged to include an Ontario Green Party spokesperson whenever candidates for other parties appear, so it appears that the decision was not unanimous.

Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario, stated on the party’s website: “I think the Green Party has some very unique positions that Ontario needs to hear and if we are going to have fair, open, inclusive debates in Ontario the Green Party needs to be at the table. In the last election 354,000 Ontarians voted for us and we had electoral results as high as 33 per cent.”

Schreiner is referring to the results in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound where, in the 2007 election, the Green Party candidate, Shane Jolley, finished second to maverick Tory Bill Murdoch, who is well known for his opposition to sustainable energy.

Johan Hamels, Executive Director of the (federal) Green Party of Canada, stated in an email that “The voices of over 354,000 voters who voted Green in the 2007 election have been silenced by the Broadcast consortium. Once again, we are confronted with a highly undemocratic decision! This is in contrast with the broadcasters in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Prince Edwards Island who included their provincial Green Party.

Justin Reist, SD&SG Green Candidate, when asked to comment, stated that we have a great chance here to see something different in the traditional leaders’ debate rather than the same old attacks, one-liners, and sound bytes that we have become accustomed to. Mike represents a different way of looking at politics and a fresh, positive voice that is missing from the other parties on the political scene.Perhaps the most convincing argument to include Mike Schreiner in the leaders’ debate comes from TV Ontario, whose editorial board recently announced that they will be giving equal coverage to Green representatives in their political coverage. As the memo TVO’s executive producer points out, “Clearly, the Green Party is seen by voters as a legitimate electoral option and it is our responsibility to present the public with a range of voices on the issues.”

.

We applaud their journalistic decision, and call on the other broadcasters to include Green voices as well.Finally, I would like to say that, regardless of the media consortium’s decision, Mike, myself, and the entire Green team will continue to run a strong campaign and promote our Five Point Planthroughout the coming weeks, as

we have since May 24th.

When contacted, local NDP candidate Elaine MacDonald stated that at the provincial level, our leader has called for more debates and we do not wish to see anyone excluded.

.

Having said that, we recognize it is not up to us to determine who participates or not, and we are focused on winning this election for New Democrats.

Locally, I understand our labour council has extended an invitation to the local Green candidate to participate in the Sept 7 Labour Council debate at the Legion.Mark MacDonald, provincial Liberal candidate, stated that he has “a deep respect for people that enter into the ‘political arena’ and everyone should be treated equally.”

Jim McDonnell had no comment on the situation.

What do you think Ontario?  You can post your comments below.

Cornwall ON -Provincial Liberal Candidate Mark MacDonald has some big shoes to fill, now that current MPP Jim Brownell is retiring. Although he has been campaigning for a while now, with the official opening of the Liberal campaign office on Pitt and Seventh in Cornwall, the campaign is now in high gear.Through talking to voters throughout the Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry riding, Mark MacDonald is well aware that local issues correspond closely to provincial issues as a whole: the economy, education, the environment, and health care.

Green Energy Act – Helping Ontario’s Industry Diversify

The Harris Hudak Conservative Party is looking for simple solutions to complex problems, with no understanding of what the future holds.  What they don’t seem to understand is that “Green is the Future. Green is the new economics.” The province of Ontario is putting itself into a commanding position in green energy technologies, which the rest of the world is looking at with envy.

What would Harris Hudak do to buy votes? They would scrap Ontario’s Green Energy Act, that is propelling Ontario towards a green future, and they would hurt thousands of hardworking Ontario families by eliminating the new green energy jobs that benefit Ontario, Canada and the entire world.

At one point, Americans bought 17 million new vehicles every year. Since the 2008 depression, that figure has dropped to 12 million and shows no signs of ever returning to its former growth. Many of these vehicles are built in Ontario, so our manufacturing, especially the auto sector, is vulnerable to troubles in the US economy. The Green Energy Act is allowing the auto sector to diversify into new products and markets, which will be in increasing demand as fossil fuels price themselves beyond what people and society can afford to pay.

Harris Hudak’s solution? Let’s all get drunk and be happy. We’ll even help you by lowering the taxes to make beer a dollar a bottle (maybe). What Harris Hudak doesn’t answer, however, is how many Ontarians will be able to afford even a dollar a bottle?

Cashing in the RRSPs

What Harris Hudak wants to do is to cash in Ontario’s RRSPs, to save a few dollars here and now, and force future Ontarians to depend on outdated and increasingly unworkable technologies. What family in their right mind would sell off their RRSPs to finance a vacation to Disneyland during hurricane season? Yet this is exactly what Harris Hudak would do to Ontario.

The Green Energy Act is preparing us for the future. If we don’t prepare now, saving and investing while we can, we risk forcing the next generation of Ontario families to plan their schedules around power blackouts, worry about how they are going to get to work, if indeed they have jobs to go to. It was a combination of too little government regulation, and a sudden rise in energy prices, and having to decide if they are going to feed their children or pay the energy bills. We can’t afford for the province to become so strapped for cash that future OHIP cards will come complete with a VISA logo.

Less Government

Harris Hudak talks about less government, about letting Ontario families do everything for themselves, but is this what we really need? Other than saving and hoarding for the future, what can individual families really do in the grand scheme of things? Successful governments allow individuals the freedom to make choices about what is best for them, in their own particular circumstances, but also provide the necessary leadership for the long term, looking after the benefits and stability no individual family could hope to achieve on its own.The Harris Hudak concept of less government, however, is ambiguous. They talk about cutting taxes and expenses, but don’t say who will have to pay more to take up the slack. One thing Harris Hudak has promised is to shut down Eastern Ontario’s own Local Health Integration Network, which decides this area’s own priorities in health care, so that we get the best value for our money. Instead, the Harris Hudak Conservatives will appoint people in Toronto to decide what’s best for us.MPP Jim Brownell and the Ontario Liberals have made sure that SDSG is well positioned to “ride out” the rest of the global economic crisis.  From Lancaster to Long Sault, Winchester to Williamsburg, Morrisburg to Martintown, Cornwall to Crysler and all places in between have been positively affected by Jim’s hard work.

The Conservatives voted against our hospitals, health centres and recreational facilities.  Ontario is on the right track and it’s time to move forward together.

$180,000 is a lot of money to be spent wining and dining 14 energy ministers and their staffs, and far exceeds previous corporate sponsorship of such events. However, these are successful and highly profitable companies, because they watch expenses and the bottom line. These companies (and most companies, to be fair) do not spend money they do not have to unless they are forced to by law or regulation, or unless they see it as an investment that will pay a worthwhile dividend later.

On the other hand, it may be the start of a whole new trend – government financed by corporate sponsorship rather than by the taxpayer.

Cornwall ON – Now that the election is coming to its climax, the inevitable question arises: Is it worth voting, and if so, for whom? 

Guy Lauzon

For someone who is already 67, and who will be over 70 when the next election is called, Guy Lauzon, the Conservative incumbent, has campaigned remarkably well. However, the battle has taken its toll. After the Cornwall all-candidates’ debate he seemed visibly exhausted. While the other candidates answered questions for another half hour or more, Lauzon left the arena as soon as he could. After the Williamstown debate, which was packed with staunch Conservative supporters wearing the party colours, he left immediately. Whether Lauzon is physically capable of carrying out his duties as MP for another four years is a serious question that must be addressed, regardless of any political agenda.

In a world where the cream is supposed to rise to the top, Lauzon has shown that he is no more than 1% milk, and all the riding should expect from him is to remain Conservative lobby-fodder. His two outstanding achievements in Parliament have been as a committee chairman (where he got fired by his own committee), and following in the footsteps of Rahim Jaffer as chairman of Conservative caucus.

As for the all-candidates debates themselves, his performance was disappointingly lacklustre. With seven years of political experience, on top of his previous involvement as a union organiser for the Public Service Alliance of Canada, one would have expected a better performance in front of the audience. As it was, the only times he really got the audience going was when he tried to defend the government’s integrity and honesty – of all the candidates, he was the only one to get booed and heckled.

Being a Conservative MP is difficult at the best of times, in that they are not allowed to depart from the official Prime Minister’s Office script, but despite the handicap, there were times during the debates when he did not seem actually to comprehend the questions he was asked and read off statements that were totally irrelevant. The question for voters to decide is whether or not Lauzon has the courage and conviction to stand up to the Prime Minister’s Office when the interests of the riding demand he do so.

 

Bernadette Clément

Bernadette Clément is well known in Cornwall, where she sits on the City Council and works as a lawyer at the Legal Clinic on McConnell Street. It says much about her character and beliefs that she took time off from her campaign to help an elderly resident of the city who found himself in an abusive situation. The fact that she works at the legal clinic when she could probably make four or five times the salary in a private law practice is a good indication that she will honestly try to put the needs of her constituents first.

As a politician, she has no trouble capturing the confidence of the citizens of Cornwall, at least at the City Council level. Support at the city level, however, does not automatically mean a majority of votes in the federal election. Judging by the number of lawn signs, she is definitely running third behind incumbent Lauzon and NDP challenger Mario Leclerc.

During the municipal campaign last October, she appeared to be following on the coat tails of former SD&G Liberal MP Bob Kilger. Given the number of Cornwall residents who consider Kilger a part of the establishment and who want nothing to do with him politically, she has to try to persuade voters that she can stand apart and be her own person.

If she succeeds in the election, voters can be confident she will do her best to put this riding on the political map and promote the best interests of its residents. However, the Liberals are a big party, and, like the Conservatives, many believe that they think they have a divine right to govern. Will Clément be able to stand above the crowd in the Liberal caucus to present her agenda, or will she be lost amongst the other rank and file Liberals when it comes to pushing for this riding’s needs?

Mario Leclerc

The Leclerc campaign is optimistically riding on the high created by Jack Layton’s sudden unexpected surge in the polls. The local party has ran an unexpectedly strong and well financed campaign, and in the urban areas of the riding, at least, is showing some strength. Possibly the anti-Kilger sentiment of many Cornwall voters is helping him compete against Liberal Bernadette Clément. However, history is campaigning against the NDP on the local level – even when NDP fortunes are at their highest, such as when Bob Rae defeated the provincial Liberals to become Premier of Ontario, the party has never been able to send a representative to Ottawa or Queen’s Park.

Leclerc has worked hard to win this campaign, and like Clément, he is young and energetic enough to maintain this momentum in Ottawa if elected. He is approachable and willing to take the time to discuss the issues with anyone, and he gives every reason to believe he would also do his best to take care of the residents here.

Although in general he was well received at the all-candidates debates, he tended to lack spontaneity, (although he was certainly better than Lauzon in this respect), and had some problems actually debating the issues. Speaking in public in a second language is difficult for anyone – luckily this will not be an issue if he makes it to the Commons. However, quite often he seemed to be reading from his campaign material and some well-prepared scripts, which showed when he would sometimes refer to himself in the third person, and when he kept referring to NDP leader Jack Layton – the leader you can trust.

Unfortunately for him he would be a rookie MP in a party that has never had to work with a large number of MPs, and one must seriously ask just how much attention the party will give him and the riding.

Wyatt Walsh  

The Green Party’s Wyatt Walsh is the only candidate who has not held some sort of public or union office. He brands himself as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and morally green.”

His business background is impressive, and gives credence to his fiscally conservative philosophy. He has worked in finance and as a successful factory manager – currently he manages his own expanding environmental company. Among other accomplishments, he has cleaned up mercury contamination from the old CIL site in Cornwall, and is currently installing a system to harvest methane (natural gas) from manure on a large dairy farm in the riding.

Being a member of the Green Party of Canada puts him at a disadvantage to the other more established political parties, partly because of media bias (for example, party leader Elizabeth May being excluded from the Leaders’ debates), and partly because the party is relatively new and small. The question format at the South Mountain all-candidates’ debate was designed to effectively exclude him, to the advantage of Guy Lauzon. When the Cornwall Chamber of Commerce tried to use a similar ruse, there was enough of an outcry they had to change their format at the last minute.

Walsh’s biggest challenge is the size of his party, and that realistically he can expect only a handful of colleagues in the House. This can be a serious disadvantage to any member. However, anyone present at any of the debates will know that Walsh is outspoken, knows what he is talking about, fears nobody, and is not a person to back down from what he believes is right.

Darcy Neal Donnelly

Representing the Libertarian Party is Darcy Neal Donnelly. His basic platform is that taxes should be voluntary, and the government should not be expected to do anything for Canadians.

A couple of questioners at the debates did succeed in pinning him down to providing specific answers. For Canadians with health issues, he suggested waiting a long time for public healthcare, going to the private sector, or waiting for Doctors without Borders. To finance his idea of government without taxes, he noted that as 90% of Canada is crown land, it should be put up for sale (possibly through ReMax?).