New 'green group' poll: Foreign oil patch money a bigger concern than foreign money in green groups

For the last month or so, there has been increasing attention (partly, I’d like to think based on some of the reporting our organization has done on the issue) of the influence foreign, mostly U.S., organization have had on what could broadly be termed the Canadian environmental lobby. This PR war is now heating to a fever pitch as the three-member independent review panel gets set to start hearings tomorrow into a proposal to build a $5.5 billion 1,177-kilometre from the Alberta oilsands to a port on the northern B.C. coast, from where supertankers would take Alberta bitumen to markets in Asia and the U.S.

Today, the green groups started firing back, Continue reading New 'green group' poll: Foreign oil patch money a bigger concern than foreign money in green groups

BC Premier Christy Clark on resource development and foreign money flowing to Canadian green groups

BCLocalNews.com published yesterday a year-end interview Tom Fletcher did with British Columbia Premier Christy Clark. Here’s some excerpts, in which Clark stays on the sidelines of the debate on a Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific but frowns on U.S. groups mobilizing and funding Canadians: Continue reading BC Premier Christy Clark on resource development and foreign money flowing to Canadian green groups

Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on

Earlier this week, MPs in the House of Commons voted on the motion you’ll see in the poll question below. I’m not going to tell you right now who tabled the motion,  what party the MP belongs to, or what the results were (and if you already know, don’t play the spoiler!)  but, in a post I hope to put up later today, I’ll touch on all of that in some notes I hope to make about about free votes in the House of Commons.

In the meantime, here is the exact wording of the House of Commons motion. As the Speaker, says, all those in favour? Opposed?:

Continue reading Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on

Transcript: Harper in Churchill on climate change, Afghanistan, Arctic weather and those hostages

Here's my transcript of the English-language portions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's press conference in Churchill, Man. earlier today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: The weather today here in Churchill has held us back a bit. This is the reality of Canada’s north. This is actually the second time this has happened. A couple of years ago we had a trip up to the high north delayed because of high winds and storms. So these things do happen. It’s a reality in Canada’s north and a reality in all of the country.

We live in a magnificent country with a challenging climate. It might hold us back at the airport but it doesn’t hold us back in building this great country. In fact, if Canada’s history is anything to go by, it makes us all the more determined.

Today traditional activites like hunting and fishing co-exist alongside cutting edge scientific research. In many ways, the vibrant community of Cambridge Bay represents a fulfillment of John Diefenbaker’s vision of a Canada of the north. And following in the Chief’s footsteps, this government has a four-point northern strategy. We are exercising Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, promoting social and economic development, protecting the north’s environmental heritage and improving and devolving northern governance so that northerners have a leading role in charting their own destiny.

The ongoing partnership between the Government of Canada and the citizens of this hardy land is aimed at building a strong and prosperous future for all of our true north. For instance, investments in scientific research here provide benefits for local communities but in a much broader sense. When we strengthen these communities we strengthen our country.

That’s why in Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we set aside substantial funding to maintain and upgrade key Arctic research facilities. Investments in Arctic science strengthen Canada’s sovereignty, fostering more sustainable environment and contribute to a growing economy. That’s why this government made a commitment to establishing a world-class station that can be a hub for research in the high Arctic.

And we are taking the next steps to deliver on that commitment. After careful review, including a comprehensive feasibility study, it has become clear which community would be the best home for this investment. Today, I’m pleased to announce that Cambridge Bay will be the site of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. This will be a world-class centre for science. This will be a tangible expression of this government’s determination to develop and protect all of our true north. And it will serve as an important stepping stone for the continue progress of Cambridge Bay.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will be a meeting place for Canada’s top scientists and, indeed, for leading scientists from around the world. The station will stimulate not only local economic activity and leading-edge research. It will also inspire the imaginations and the ambitions of young Canadians in Cambridge Bay and across the north.

I want to take a few moments … to talk about the bigger picture. In the recent global recession, Canada has done better, far better, than its peers among advanced countries. And while the strength of our economy is encouraging, nothing can be taken for granted. That’s why we continue to be focused on the economy and jobs and why we are continuing to follow a plan, Canada’s economic action plan, a plan that has witnessed the creation of nearly four hundred thousand net new jobs over the past year.

We are investing in things that have a lasting value for our communities and for our country. If we stay on course and we continue to make strategic investments like the high Arctic research station in Cambridge Bay, I’m confident future prosperity awaits us all.

Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News: [The research station] is being located in a part of the Arctic where they are increasingly seeing winters that don’t last as long so I’m wondering to what extent will this centre teach us all about the impact of global warming, how will that assure the sceptics that, indeed, global warming is a reality and how will it impact your reputation as a government that is actually getting serious about research on the issue?

Harper: This government has been generously funding research on that issue and – yes – I would anticipate that the high Arctic research station will become a hub for research on climate change as well as a wide range of other issues. It will be a large-scale world-class centre that will be looking at all aspects of northern science and northern environment. But rest assured – research on that is proceeding already. For instance, I was in Alert, in the very far north – the farthest north you can go – not long after I became prime minister. I visited the weather station there where they were, in fact, tracking the effects of climate change. So this is something our government does contribute to.

Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star: This research station has been three years in the making. It’s going to be potentially another five years (until design is complete). We have icebreakers, which are long-term. Patrol vessels. What do you say to critics who say that some of the signature projects of your Arctic initiative — there doesn’t seem to be an urgency to them. When do you think scientists might take up station in Cambridge Bay?

Harper: I would say to you: These are big-scale, long-term projects. They’re not done in an instant. Major Coast Guard procurements, for example, are the same as major military procurements. They take place over a long period of time. Obviously, they’re co-ordinated with the wearing-out of existing vessels and the replacement of those vessels. In the case of the research station, yes, it is also a long-term project in terms of development. There’s a lot of design work to be done on this. In the meantime, we have been putting additional money into northern research and into existing northern research facilities to expand programs and to lay the groundwork for the eventual and final establishment of the research station. So just to be clear: They’re long-term projects but we’re not standing still. Things are happening to prepare the ground and to expand the scientific research programs in the north in the meantime.

Terry Milewski, CBC Television: A question on another topic, if I may: You’ve been clear for some time that Canada’s continuing mission in Afghanistan is going to purely civilian. Parliament has been clear. It’s also clear that without armed security no civilian mission is really possible and [Afghanistan] President [Hamid] Karzai doesn’t want private contractors anymore. Doesn’t it follow that Canadian civilians working in Aghanistan will either have to be protected by the military of some other nation or by Canadian military? What is your preference?

Harper: Well, these are difficult questions. I see there’s a report today on some proposals for our future involvements. I should just be clear that while officials are examining various proposals we have not taken decisions and there are difficult questions along those lines to answer and I will certainly concede that President Karzai’s decision will certainly complicate some of those choices in the future. But I’m not in a position today, Terry, to answer those questions but we are working on.

Daniel Thibeault, Radio-Canada: [Asks, in French, about Harper’s reaction to the hostage taking in the Philippines and whether or not he’s had a chance to speak to the families of the Canadian victims]

Harper: No I haven’t had a chance to speak to anyone involved. Officials, obviously are following this very closely and I’m not in a position to give any details but we do know there are deaths involved in this incident. It is a terrible and a tragic incident and obviously I just want to take this opportunity to express my condolences on my behalf and obviously on behalf of the entire government to the families who have lost loved ones in this particular tragedy.

James Cudmore, CBC Radio: A couple of weeks ago you were asked about seismic testing in Lancaster Sound and, at the time, you said it had nothing to do with oil and gas exploration but the government of Canada’s role in that testing program is funded under the geo-mapping for energy and minerals program whose goal is to provide high-quality data on the location and exploitation of energy and mineral resources. I wonder if you can explain that discrepancy and, more broadly, if you could speak to what extent aiding in the exploitation of Arctic energy and mineral resources is a priority for your government.

Harper: Well, first of all, let me be clear. My understanding of this particular testing – it’s principal purpose – was in the development of the protected marine area we’re developing there. But obviously the government has made a commitment to do enhanced scientific mapping throughout this region. And obviously potential uses of that knowledge are multifold in the long-term. But this is, we have felt, good scientific work that is of great value to Canada and provides a potential employment in this part of the country and I should mention that the particular project in question was something we agree to with the government of Nunavut. So we’re obviously disappointed with the court decision and have not yet taken a position on how we will respond to that decision.

Cudmore: And more broadly on the extent that your government feels it necessary to aid in the exploitation …

Harper: I say that this kind of data is useful for all kinds of potential purposes but obviously any kind of economic development, [or] specific resource development that we pursue, we want to make sure we do in concert with people in this region of the country and that they will benefit significantly should that occur.

AECL to be divided, Candu division for sale

The federal government took the first steps Thursday to getting out of the nuclear power business while, at the same time, committing itself to holding onto its nuclear research facility at Chalk River, Ont., the home of the rusting reactor — now in shutdown mode — that is the source of nearly half of the world's medical isotopes.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation that had its origins in the Cold War 60 years ago, will be split into two business units.

The research unit, which includes the Chalk River Laboratory, will remain under the control of the government, albeit with new management that will come from the private sector.

But AECL's commercial business, which designs and sells the powerful Candu nuclear reactors that are used to generate electricity, is up for grabs to the highest bidder and the government has placed no restrictions on the kinds of proposals it will entertain.

That means there are no guarantees that Canadian jobs or technology would be protected if, as the government hopes, a new foreign partner steps up to buy a chunk of AECL. The government believes that the only hope for the survival of the Candu business is to find a major foreign partner with some hefty financial muscle and promising sales prospects in global markets.

[Read the rest of the story]

On energy, Canada needs to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, says industry

If Canada wants to fulfil Prime Minister Stephen Harper's oft-stated goal of becoming an energy superpower, his government and some provinces must do a better job reducing regulatory and financial uncertainty for global oil and gas investors, a trio of industry representatives said Tuesday.

“Quite frankly, as a result of federal and provincial policy decisions . . . investors have lost some confidence in Canada,” said Don Herring, president of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, which represents the operators of almost all of the country's drilling and service rigs.

“Governments have in place regulatory policies that result in high-cost production.”

“Canada provides among the lowest rates of return on investment in the world. I know Canadians may be surprised to hear that,” said Gary Leach, executive director of the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. “We have a highly regulated industry. We have some of the highest environmental standards in the world. And all of this increases the costs of operating in Canada. We are facing — and have for several years — an uncertain regulatory climate for CO2 emissions. The uncertainty alone delays, deters and discourages investment.”

[Read the rest of the story]

Can America depend on "turbulent Canada"?

In the lastest edition of Newsweek, columnist George F. Will heaps his scorn on the “government-driven mania” for biofuels, particularly ethanol. He notes that the U.S. has been driven to seek alternative supplies of stuff you can fill up the car with because the country is so heavily dependent on foreign suppliers like “turbulent Canada and militant Mexico”. He doesn't really back up the statement, but it's odd and a little alarming to see that Will, who represents a certain conservative orthodoxy in the Washington, assumes that things north of the border are “turbulent.”

Technorati Tags: , ,

What Lunn said to Keen

On December 27, 2007, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn fired off a letter to Linda Keen, President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Keen and the federal government were at loggerheads over the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. In his letter, released today by the Commission, Lunn basically asked Keen to give him a reason why she shouldn’t be fired.

Excerpts from Lunn’s letter to Keen:

I am writing to convey to you my deep concern with respect to the actions of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the “Commission”), of which you are President, that resulted in the continued shutdown of the NRU reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. My concern extends to the failure of the Commission to facilitate the return to operation of the NRU reactor in a timely manner, considering that it is the primary source of medical isotopes necessary for the critical health care of Canadians . . .

These events have cast doubt on whether you possess the fundamental good judgement required by the incumbent of the office of President of the Commission, and whether you are duly executing the requirements of the office. Serious questions have arisen about whether the Commission, under your leadership, could have dealt more appropriately with the risk management of the situation . . .

… The continuing refusal of the Commission, under your leadership, to prevent unreasonable risk to the health of Canadians potentially undermines public confidence in the regulation of the nuclear industry in Canada. These doubts have led me to question whether you should continue to serve as President of the Commission. The measure taken by Parliament to adopt Bill C-38 also suggests a lack of confidence by all parties in your judgement . . .

You should be aware that I am considering making a recommendation to the Governor in Council that your designation as President of the Commission be terminated while maintaining your status as a full-time member of the Commission. However, before I decide whether or not to make that recommendation, I am prepared to hear from you . . .

Be sure to read Keen’s response.

Nuclear regulator fires back at Lunn

After the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory was shut down back in December — causing a medical crisis worldwide becuase no one could get the crucial medical isotopes produced at Chalk River — the federal government hauled the head of Canada’s nuclear safety regulator Linda Keen before Parliament to explain herself.

Then, as we’re learning today, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn sent Keen a letter on Dec. 27, 2007 basically saying, give us a good reason why we shouldn’t fire you.

Well, today, after that letter came to light, Keen and the regulator are firing back with all guns blazing:

First, Keen called in the RCMP to investigate the leak of that Dec. 27 letter, which was supposed to be private and confidential.

Second, Keen called in the Privacy Commissioner to investigate the leak of that letter.

Finally, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) — that’s the group that Keen is the President of — released 38 pages of documents this afternoon which include Lunn’s Dec. 27 letter as well as her blistering response/attack in this letter to Lunn:

“As the head of an independent quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, I was and remain deeply troubled by both the tone and content of your letter. The nature of the allegations which have been made, coupled with your threat to have me removed as President, seriously undermine the independence of the CNSC…

The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held that the principles of fundamental justice require quasi-judicial administrative tribunals to be free from political influence or interference….

[Your actions] are examples of improper interference with both the institutional independence of the CNSC and with the administration of justice …

I would therefore ask you to carefully consider the significant chilling effect your recent actions could have on the practices and decisions of other tribunals who are responsible for important work on behalf of Canadians.”

So far today — 1:50 pm Ottawa time — Lunn’s office has not responded to our requests to interview him. A spokesman for the CNSC said neither Keen nor any other from the CNSC will be making any further comments about this matter today.