Harper Cuts Funding to Group For Condemning Canada's Tar Sands

Further proof that Stephen Harper and the Reform Conservatives have no plan to seriously fight global arming, is their recent cancellation of funds to a faith-based human rights organization, KAIROS.

Kairos is supposed to represent a person's time with God, and these people show a true religious spirit by protecting the world's citizens.

But Harper's vindictive nature wouldn't see it that way. They dared to cross him, so now must suffer his wrath.

Ottawa starves climate critics of cash on eve of eco-summit
Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau
December 3, 2009

OTTAWA–The federal government, already facing international criticism as a climate change laggard ahead of next week's Copenhagen summit, has cut funding to a Toronto aid group that helps the world's poorest countries cope with the ravages of global warming.

KAIROS, a multi-faith group that has received money from the Canadian International Development Agency for more than three decades, was refused its request for $7.1 million over four years this week. A CIDA official told the organization's director that its programs no longer "fit" with the government agency's priorities, an official with the aid organization said.

The group, which also advocates against human rights violations abroad, received no official or detailed explanation from the government spelling out why its application had been turned down. But a peek at its past activities shows it has lined up on behalf of seven religious denominations against Conservative policies on climate change, overseas mining operations, aboriginal rights, immigration and international trade.

"Many of the issues we deal with are sensitive, from the point of view of the current government," said Mary Corkery, KAIROS's executive director. "There are people who would say all of the issues we deal with are sensitive issues. That's the point. They're issues that are absolutely crucial to people's survival in the south, and people in the north are often contributing in one way, directly or indirectly."

The news from CIDA, delivered in a brief telephone call Monday, comes on the eve of the Copenhagen climate-change summit where one of the key issues to be negotiated is how far rich countries will go in providing financial assistance to help developing nations cope with a warmer planet.

The government says the decision to end the funding is in line with a larger effort to make international assistance more focused and efficient and group it under three themes: food security, children and sustainable economic growth.

"When KAIROS's funding agreement was up for renewal they submitted a new proposal," said Jean-Luc Benoit, a spokesman for International Development Minister Bev Oda. "After completing due diligence it was determined that the organization's project does not meet CIDA's current priorities."

The move seems to mimic previous government decisions to stop or slash funding to programs that let government critics challenge its decisions in court, and to organize and speak out on behalf of Muslims and women.

Earlier this year, KAIROS led a trip to northern Alberta's oil sands to document environmental damage occurring so that multinational firms can extract vast energy stores out of the ground. It has urged MPs to support an opposition bill that would have held Canada to deeper reductions of greenhouse gas emissions than the government was willing to support.

It has also targeted the work of Canadian mining firms operating in Africa and Latin America for their record upholding labour rights and degrading the environment. The Tory government's efforts to force these companies to respect those rights have came up too short for the group, and it said so.

Corkery said its mission is to help improve human rights around the world. The government's new overseas development accountability act makes human rights CIDA's top priority as well, she said.

"You would think that it has to fit."

The $7.1 million for which the group had applied – $1,775,000 a year – works out to about 0.04 per cent of CIDA's annual official development assistance budget, which was $4.73 billion in 2008, according to the Library of Parliament.

KAIROS would have used the money to help resettle people who have lost their homes and livelihoods because of rising sea levels, and to help a legal clinic in the Congo that assists rape victims, among other projects.

Ignatiff Reaches Out to Alberta in a Spirit of Unity

Albertans have had a distrust of Ottawa since the National Energy Program, introduced by Pierre Trudeau, almost thirty years ago!

In the wake of the energy crisis, the intent, at least in part, was to promote oil self-sufficiency for Canada and maintain the oil supply.

However, it also kept domestic oil prices below world market prices, which prevented Alberta from enjoying the boom, while subsidizing Canadian consumers at their expense.

Trudeau also introduced several taxes which further crippled the industry.

What is important to remember though, is that then Alberta Premier, Peter Lougheed, had willingly signed on to the program and a photo of Lougheed and Trudeau toasting the deal with champagne was widely distributed across the country.

What made it turn south, was a sudden drop in world oil prices and the interference of OPEC.

However, since that time, Conservative governments have capitalized on the ill-fated plan, to win votes in Alberta. Brian Mulroney campaigned on ending it, but stalled long enough to give rise to the Reform Party.

Stephen Harper still throws it around when he's getting desperate, though he himself promised to end the tax on tax, which soon just got added to the growing list of his 'unkept'.

Sadly though, this pitting Alberta against the rest of Canada, is becoming as much of a threat to national unity as Quebec separation, and I think the next Prime Minister will really have to work at building bridges, rather than burning them down.

Recently Michael Ignatieff has extended a hand and promised not to campaign on destroying the oil sands, but instead work with the province to clean them up. That's the priority.

Environmental activists should still protest, to hold their feet to the fire, but simply putting an end to the industry will have a devastating affect on this country's economy, so the challenge for Ignatieff will be to strike a balance.

Whether or not this will win him seats in Alberta, remains to be seen, but if he can at least remove the boogey man, it might put an end to the us vs them mentality, sparked by the Tories to maintain power.

Michael Ignatieff will not abandon environmental concerns, but he will not abandon Alberta either.

Grit leader flatters Alberta, criticizes Tories
By Renata D’Aliesio,
Calgary Herald
July 4, 2009

CALGARY — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff touted Saturday the economic virtues and national reach of Alberta’s oilsands, urging Canadians to take pride in the mammoth industrial development, which has touched off international environmental opposition.

Speaking at a party fundraiser Stampede breakfast in Calgary, Ignatieff said financial ripples from the oilsands can be felt throughout the country — from East Coast workers flying to Alberta for jobs to a northern Ontario factory making pipes for the oilpatch in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

He also said Canada’s “centre of economic gravity” will shift west to Calgary within his lifetime.

“The one instinct I’ve had from the beginning about the industry at the heart of this economy is this is a national industry — a national industry in which all Canadians should take pride,” Ignatieff told about 600 Grit supporters at the Calgary Zoo.

“The Liberal Party of Canada must never, ever, ever run against that industry or against Alberta.”

Ignatieff acknowledged several environmental and social challenges may be thwarting a national embrace of the oilsands.

The massive development is a significant producer of greenhouse gases and toxic waste ponds.

Mount Royal College political scientist Duane Bratt noted Ignatieff’s continuing overtures to Alberta and the oilpatch are a “clear repudiation” of the policy plank former leader Stephane Dion put forward for the October 2008 federal election: the Green Shift carbon tax plan.

“The bigger question that I would have for Ignatieff is that’s fine, saying that in Calgary. Let’s see you say it in Montreal. Let’s see you say it in Toronto,” Bratt said. (I suspect it would be a little different, but the bottom line is that unemployment is also a big issue of the day, so promising to shut down the oil sands, throwing thousands of people out of work, is not the answer anywhere in Canada)

While Ignatieff’s oilsands stance has earned a smattering of praise from the Stelmach Conservatives, winning even a single seat in Alberta will be a difficult challenge for the Liberals — but not impossible, Bratt suggested.

The party was shut out in the last campaign, as the Stephen Harper Conservatives won all but one of the province’s 28 federal ridings. The last time a Grit was elected in Calgary was in 1968.

Though Ignatieff urged supporters to prepare for the next election, shared his vision of Canada on its 150th birthday in 2017 and accused the prime minister of taking Alberta voters for granted, he wouldn’t speculate on when the next election may come.

In taking aim at the Conservatives’ climate change record, Ignatieff said delays and a lack of clarity have created uncertainty for investors and producers. He said the Liberals favour carbon trading and hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions, but didn’t offer more detail.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice rejected Ignatieff’s assertion that the Conservative government is faltering on climate change.

Canada is in talks with the United States about developing cleaner energy from coal-fired power plants and the oilsands. Prentice said he plans to unveil all of Canada’s climate change plans before the United Nations next climate change conference in December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Detailed regulations will follow in 2010, he added.

“We’re not waiting for the Americans just to be perfectly clear,” Prentice said at his Stampede breakfast Saturday. “The Canadian policies will be policies that reflect Canada’s national interest.”

Prentice also dismissed claims that the Conservatives take Albertans’ support for granted.

“We don’t take any vote in this province for granted. Not one single vote. We work hard and that’s why we’re so strong on the ground.”

Interesting choice of words. 'We don't take any VOTE for granted'. How about the PEOPLE of Alberta? They're not JUST VOTES!!!

Lisa Raitt Accuses Jim Prentice of Pandering to Oilfields

As snippets of a five hour tape made of a conversation between Lisa Raitt and her assistant become public, it will not only be embarrassing for the Conservatives, but also revealing.

Ms Raitt may have criticized her colleague Jim Prentice, but she also made light of an alleged backroom deal he made with the oil industry.

Perception is everything, and Albertans are fiercely protective of their own.

Will they put pressure on Stephen Harper to give her boot? It's not looking good.

Wind money given to oil producers instead, Raitt tape suggests
By STEPHEN MAHER
Ottawa Bureau
June 10, 2009

OTTAWA – Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

The revelation is likely to intensify criticism of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as unfriendly to the environment.

Mr. Prentice is the MP for Calgary-Centre North, home to much of Canada's oil industry. Mr. Harper also represents a Calgary riding.

Ms. Raitt made the comment as she and Ms. MacDonnell were being driven around British Columbia on Jan. 30, a few days after the budget.

The conversation was inadvertently recorded on Ms. MacDonnell's digital recorder and eventually came into the possession of The Chronicle Herald.

Ms. MacDonnell tells Ms. Raitt that CanWEA, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, had sent a letter to its supporters complaining about the lack of funding for wind energy in the budget.

“I'm not going to put up with the whining of CanWEA, and the reason being is that they're not utilizing the money that is there now,” says Ms. Raitt. “And until these things don't start getting built.”

Ms. MacDonnell appears to read from the letter from CanWEA: “We know that the proposal was actively promoted and pushed by Minister Raitt. In fact, it is our understanding that it was actually part of the budget until it was taken out very late in the process.”

Ms. Raitt responds: “No. No. I would never have told that.”

“You wouldn't have told her,” says Ms. MacDonnell. “Is that true?”

“Yes,” says Ms. Raitt. “It is true.”

“So somebody is talking,” says Ms. MacDonnell.

“Someone in Finance talked,” says Ms. Raitt. “Am I going to get blamed for this?”

Ms. Raitt was worried about the prime minister's reaction to the fact that CanWEA was somehow aware of budget talks, which are supposed to be kept in confidence.

“I certainly didn't know the fact that it came out late in the process,” she said.“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that's what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said 'Ah, they don't need it.' There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied.

Maybe that's why I'm invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister's not going to like that.”Ms. Raitt at first blames the normally tight-lipped Finance officials for leaking the information. Later in the conversation, though, she and Ms. MacDonnell seem to agree that it may have been Natural Resources officials who let CanWEA know that the money had been there but was pulled.

“Those quotes clearly point to the fact that I'm on the team,” says Ms. Raitt. “And I am. That's what happened. I don't have that pull. Period.”

“Do you think someone on the EnerCan side did it?” she asks Ms. MacDonnell.

“That would probably be the most likely explanation, that they're trying to do damage control with the different groups,” she says. “'We did it. We pushed. We brought it. It was there.'”

“'The minister brought it to Flaherty,'” says Ms. Raitt. “I didn't push it hard at the table though.”

They go on to discuss problems with wind energy funding, with Ms. Raitt complaining that wind energy producers aren't accessing federal funding that is already available – a subsidy based on kilowatt production.“If they can't finance it, and they can't get their (environmental approvals), and they can't buy their equipment, then it doesn't go further and they don't get the kilowatt cent,” she says.“So I asked Tyler what's the sunset? How long do people have to hold onto money? And I don't know what the answer is yet. But there's $862 million still waiting for this project.“I'm upset that the ministry, that the department, told people that that was going to be oversubscribed by a certain date. That's built this whole fear. It was a $1.5-billion announcement, started in '07.

No one would ever think the funding would run out unless they were told it would run out. So that's my sadness.”

CanWEA complained publicly about the lack of new money in a news release after the budget.“Our ability to compete with the United States for investment in wind energy projects and manufacturing opportunities will decline as a result of this budget,” said president Robert Hornung.“

At a time when the United States has made measures to support renewable energy deployment a key component of its plans to stimulate the U.S. economy, Canada is moving in the opposite direction.”

CanWEA had called for a $600-million fund to expand wind energy. It declined to comment when contacted Wednesday.

On May 19, Ms. Raitt announced the $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil patch at a speech at the University of Alberta, saying the money would encourage “new technologies now to help protect and preserve our environment for future generations.”

Mr. Prentice's office refused to comment on the recording on Tuesday, and the minister's office told reporters he would end a media question and answer session on Wednesday if anybody asked him about the recording.

Ms. Raitt's office also declined to comment.

Speculation about the recording has been rife since the Canadian Press reported Tuesday that Ms. Raitt mentioned Mr. Prentice on the recording, apparently because Conservative officials knew about the comments and were bracing themselves.

Ms. Raitt's comments about the budget wrangling were made on the same five-hour recording in which Ms. Raitt called the medical isotope crisis “sexy” and criticized her cabinet colleague, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, which has led to a media storm in Ottawa.

The Chronicle Herald went to Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Monday to fight an emergency injunction that would have blocked publication of the stories that came from the recorder.

After refusing to apologize on Tuesday under opposition pressure, Ms. Raitt did tearfully apologize for her remarks in a news conference in Ottawa on Wednesday, making reference to the toll cancer has taken in her own family.

If the allegations are true that Mr. Prentice made a backroom with the oil industry, this brings into question his competence and integrity, not to mention the integrity of the oil industry. I wonder what the old Reformers are thinking?

Jim Prentice Uses Environment Budget to Prop up the Oilsands

When Jim Prentice was given the Environment portfolio, it was not because he couldn't do any worse with it than Rhona Ambrose or John Baird, but because the Oil Sands were in trouble. Nations were beginning to refuse Alberta's 'dirty oil', and without Alberta's 'dirty oil', the Conservatives could not play 'dirty politics'.

Prentice defends oilsands following National Geographic article
Environment minister says it's 'just one article'
February 25, 2009
CBC News

Canada will continue to push the important role that Alberta's oilsands play in the North American marketplace, says Environment Minister Jim Prentice, despite a telling article appearing in March's National Geographic.

"It's very difficult to see the North American marketplace developing in an orderly way for energy without the oilsands being part of the equation," Prentice told CBC News on Wednesday.

The March issue of the National Geographic provides its estimated 40 million readers with a 20-page article that features pictures of sludge-covered tailing ponds and the sprawling oilfields.

Many of the pages show before-and-after pictures of the oilsands near Fort McMurray, Alta., while graphically describing how the oil is extracted — from the forest being cut down, to the peat, dirt and moss being removed, to the water stripping the bitumen from the sand, and the contaminated water flowing into tailings ponds.

The Alberta government has called the article "fair" and indicated that it appreciated that the author acknowledges the province's work on carbon emissions.

The article indicates that by 2020, Alberta carbon emissions will level off and by 2050, they'll decline to 15 per cent below their 2005 levels.

"Alberta has a rigorous environmental regime in place," said Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner. "We sometimes don't get a fair shake in the eyes of the public opinion and the media. That being said, we can do better."

'Just one article': Prentice

Environment Minister Jim Prentice defended Canada's development of the oilsands following the publication of an article in National Geographic on Wednesday. (Canadian Press) Despite the article turning international attention toward the environmental impact of the oilsands, Prentice dismissed it as "just one article" and added he doesn't always agree with what National Geographic publishes.

Canada will be pushing ahead with the clean energy dialogue agreed to by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to Ottawa last week, Prentice said.

"Certainly the oilsands are always going to be part of that discussion but it's a discussion that focuses on that we have as clean [an] energy resource as possible," Prentice said, adding his discussions in Washington next week will relate to all sources of energy.

The environment minister has argued that supplying oil to the U.S. could be part of bilateral plans that would also seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create cleaner fuel. The plans could include a common cap-and-trade carbon-market system and tougher fuel standards for coal and oil industries in North America.

He said the two countries also need to discuss concrete action plans to reduce not only greenhouse gas emission levels, but North American dependence on foreign oil.

"We're of common mind," Prentice said. "We want to reduce our carbon footprint and have the cleanest source of energy as possible. But the oilsands are an important part of the overall North American supply and demand for energy and they will continue to be.

"The answer to all of this is technology, investments in technology, and that's why we'll be working together with the United States to that end," he said.

Canada has been battling a reputation as a purveyor of dirty oil in light of the Obama administration's push for the development of clean and green energy.

But Mike Hudema, an energy spokesman with Greenpeace Canada, said the National Geographic article will educate many people on the oilsands and their effects on the environment. For some people, it will be the first time they see what a toxic tarpit looks like, he said.

Those "before-and-after exhibits" in the magazine are very telling, said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, a senior lawyer with the Washington-based Natural Resources Defence Council.
"
When you see what's actually happening, you begin to understand the magnitude of the environmental and public health problems," Casey-Lefkowitz said.

Obama's administration has been mounting efforts to shift the United States toward a green energy economy while placing caps on carbon emissions.

The transition will mean that the U.S. is "not going to need oil the same way as we have in the past," Casey-Lefkowitz said.

"Looking at more dirty and environmentally destructive sources of fuel like the tarsands is really a way of the past for us and especially when we look at the proposed expansion of the tarsands," she said.

The environmental destruction and pollution that an expansion of the tarsands would cause doesn't fit with the push for a green energy economy in the U.S., she said.

Beyond the emissions, the oilsands are destroying the Athabasca River, raising cancer rates in nearby communities, destroying the boreal forest and animal habitats, she added.

"There really aren't technology fixes to make it better at this point," she said.

The Bloc Québécois and NDP also slammed the Conservative government for not doing enough to clean up the oilsands.

"We hope [the article] will help move all governments, especially the federal government that has not used tools at its disposal to protect the environment, to protect the health of aboriginals and others in the region and to … end subsidies to the big oil companies for those projects," said NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Jim Prentice, rather than raising concerns over the National Geopgrapic article, in relation to the environment, not just lost revenue for his fianancial backers; dismisses it as 'just one article'. Does he read at all?

Cheap oil, but at what cost?

Oilsands Truth

U.S. mayors call for boycott of Alberta oilsands

Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

Cleaning up Alberta's 'dirty oil'

Canadian worries over Alberta's oil sands

Alberta's 'dirty' oil a sticky problem for Charest

Canada's 'dirty oil' challenge

Investing In Oil Sands: Alberta's Dirty Secret is Out...

Obama's fight against 'dirty oil' could hurt oil sands

Alberta Oil Sands - Irresponsible & Dirty Oil

If he has trouble reading, maybe he should just listen:

Alberta Dirty Oil: Tar Sands Explained.

Canada's Dirty Oil Problem

Prentice promises details of emissions policy
California move could hurt oilsands
By Kelly Cryderman,

Calgary Herald

May 7, 2009

As California was poised to approve a low-carbon fuel standard that could thwart future Alberta oilsands exports, Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canadians can expect details of national carbon pricing systems before the end of the year--when dozens of countries will gather in Copenhagen for an international climate change conference.

"By the time we get to Copenhagen, we will have a full suite of Canadian policies that deal with all sorts of major sources of emissions," Prentice said Thursday from Syracuse, Italy, where he was attending a meeting of environment ministers from leading industrialized and developing nations.

Also on Thursday, California's Air Resources Board held hearings on whether to adopt a landmark low-carbon fuel standard-- designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels by 10 per cent. The California regulations will examine not only what comes out of tailpipes, but also emissions from the actual production of fuel.

But before any final decision was made, Canada and Alberta officials spoke in defence of the oilsands.

The stakes are high. Although California does not use oilsands-produced oil now, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers-- which also spoke at Thursday's hearing--considers the most-populous state a potential market. And the standard adopted in California is widely expected to act as a national model as the United States moves forward on more aggressive climate change policy under President Barack Obama.

Alberta Energy spokesman Jason Chance said it's important Alberta defend itself, as it's believed the regulations will target Alberta oilsands exports.

The province argues that oilsands production does not necessarily result in more emissions than other heavy oil sources, when the transportation and processing is considered.

"We are concerned that it would put Alberta oilsands crude at a competitive disadvantage to other crudes from Mexico, Venezuela and even heavy oil being produced in California," Chance said. "We're simply asking for equal treatment."

However it is widely recognized that compared to conventional oil production, oilsands sites produce significantly more greenhouse gas emissions. For some projects, emissions may be four times as high.

Back in Italy, Prentice said the ongoing meeting of G-8 and emerging economy environment ministers is a particularly important one because it leads up to a December meeting in Copenhagen. That upcoming gathering of world leaders is meant to determine a new global greenhouse gas reductions pact.

The minister said that in the months before Copenhagen, he will outline plans for pricing all major sources of carbon emissions-- perhaps through a cap and trade system, as is planned in the U. S.

"We still have to make some decisions there," Prentice said, adding he will soon move on the coalfired electricity and transportation sectors.

Whatever is developed, it will need to dovetail with U. S. policies, Prentice said. The minister will be in Washington, D. C. on Monday for further climate and energy talks.

This week, Environment Canada reported that Canada's greenhouse emissions are on a "significant" growth trajectory, thanks largely to the oilsands, an increase in the number of vehicles and greater reliance on coalfired electricity.