A word from our new Ambassador of Religious Freedom

"Religion, artificially divorced from the public sphere, makes for an impoverished politics at best, and a benighted political class at worst."

Our new Ambassador of Religious Freedom, Andrew P. W. Bennett, 2 years a dean of Augustine College,  is passionate about returning religious discourse to public life.
Our "official secular religion", he argues two years ago here, "violates freedom of religious expression." 

Huh.

In April 2011, ImmMin Jason Kenney announced that Canada's religious freedom office "would be modeled after the Office of International Religious Freedom within the US Department of State," whose head is styled as an ambassador. 

Two days ago, in announcing our ambassador for the new Office of Religious Freedom within Foreign Affairs, Harper "denied the office would be modeled after its U.S. counterpart, which has been accused of being biased towards Christians". 

Really?
A closed-door ORF Stakeholders Conference in 2011 chaired by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and the following four out of six Christian panelists advised the government 

• Thomas Farr, the State Department's first director of the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom. Catholic
• Father Raymond De Souza, Roman Catholic priest, NattyPost columnist, and on the Board of Directors at The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
• Anne Brandner, former policy analyst with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada., which "promotes Biblical principles on matters of public policy"
• Don Hutchinson, vice-president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, who yesterday suggested : "A key part of the ambassador’s job should be to help formulate immigration policy."
• Frank Dimant, CEO of B'nai Brith Canada and Chair of the Department of Modern Israel Studies at Charles McVety's Evangelical Canada Christian College .
• Susanne Tamas of the Baha'i Community of Canada.

Our Ambassador of Religious Freedom has a Ph.D in political science and has been a policy research & analysis manager at Natural Resources Canada and senior political risk analyst at Export Development Canada. He is currently working part-time towards a theology degree in Ottawa.

Which of the above credentials do you think will be most useful to him in defending "freedom of religious expression" against our "official secular religion" ?

Update -- DJ : 'Acids of Modernity' at a Christian Finishing School Ha!
.

Enbridge Joe Oliver and his 19 radical foreigners

Tonight on As It Happens, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver continued on with his rant published in today's G&M against the "foreign special interest groups" and "jet-setting celebrities" that use "a quintessential American approach" to "hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda."

"The system is broken," he wrote. "It is an urgent matter of Canada's national interest."


"Canada's national interest" here being the proposed Enbridge tarsands project and the Cons need to derail the shitstorm of protest coming down the pike at them by discrediting pipeline opponents as unpatriotic pawns of sneaky foreign astroturf experts.


About those radical foreign special interest groups.
Carol Off noted that 4,522 individuals had registered to make their allotted ten minute submissions to the hearing.
Yup, said Oliver : "thousands of people repeating repeating the same the same studied lines." 


Well, said Off, most of them appeared to live along the proposed pipeline route, and in looking though their requests to appear before the hearing listed on the Natural Resources website, "19 of the 4500 people were registered in the United States."


Nineteen. 
A regular juggernaut of 19 jet-setting hi-jacking celebrity furriners, each speaking their allotted 10 minutes in their radical 'quintessential American approach' . 
How will Canada's national interest ever survive three hours of it?


And yet, continued Off, "on that list, the foreigners appear to be mostly oil companies."


Well that's different, explained Oliver. They're bringing tens of billions of dollars to "diversify our markets to Asia" .


But "the concern here is that foreign influences do not have Canada's best interests in mind," pursued Off. "How is it that you can trust the foreign oil companies who are intervening to have Canada's best interests in mind?"


Because they're bringing their own money, repeated Oliver.




Here's the show. Complete transcript below. 
Well done, Carol Off.

"Canada's economic development is being hindered by radical environmental groups financed from the US.

That was the thrust of an open letter published today written by Canada's Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver.
In the letter Mr Oliver called for a revamp of how environmental reviews are done, namely that they be protected from interference by environmental lobby groups. This comes just one day before the public hearing into Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway project. if approved the pipeline will run from the Alberta oil sands to the coastal town of Kitimat, BC.


We reached Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, on his cell phone in Toronto."


Carol Off : Mr Oliver, who are these radical groups you mention in your letter?


Oliver : Well I'm not going to name names but there are, as people know, a number of groups who are opposed to the development of hydro carbons - they even oppose hydro-electricity development. I don't know where they think we're going to get the energy to maintain our current level of civilization but that's where they're coming from and they're trying to game the system.


Carol Off : Why can't you tell us who they are?


Oliver : Well because I don't think we need to get into that level of specificity. The point is they're there, some of them are being financed by, er, by groups, and we think that these decisions which are so important for the Canadian economy, for Canadian jobs, should be made by Canadians in Canada.


Carol Off : If you can't tell us who the people are that you're concerned about - the radical groups - can you tell us what their sources of money are?


Oliver : Well we know for example the Tides group is one but there are others that are providing, er, that are providing funding, and that information I think is available or will be available.


Carol Off : And do they have less money or more money than the oil companies who are lobbying to have the project go through.


Oliver : The issue is what they're using the money for and how much money is being used.


Carol Off : There are 4,522 individuals who are registered to make oral statements, according to your website - they will get about 10 minutes to do that - and 216 registered intervenors. How many of these are under the influence of these radical groups?


Oliver : Well I don't know precisely but it's uh ... and I don't want to get into that particular project which is under regulatory review ... but this is not an unknown tactic where a particular organization will send many of its members in to repeat the same message. In a court environment that wouldn't happen; the court would take a count of the numbers but they would wanna hear from people who have something new, different, and relevant to say ... rather than just you know thousands of people repeating repeating the same the same studied lines.


Carol Off : Well, these kinds of hearings, especially something this large, often attract hundreds and even thousands of people who have something to say, and just looking at the website, on your Ministry of Natural Resources website, it shows that most of these people appear to be Canadians who live along the pipeline route. In fact we found 19 of the 4500 people were registered in the United States.


Oliver : Well the issue ... and some from you know Venezuela and so on ... but um the issue is whether people who are participating - and that's something that the panelists will look at - but just as a broad statement, yeah, the issue is whether panelists have something new, different, and relevant to say or whether they're just simply parrotting a message. You know what these letters are, and we receive them and I imagine CBC sometimes receives them as well, where people are basically have been given a line and they just add their name to essentially the same letter. When we receive that, we take account of the numbers but understand that the hundreds, the thousands of letters relating to a particular issue represent a particular perspective. It's relevant to know how many people have that perspective but we don't have to take each letter and question each person if they're merely using a form to sign a letter. I think everyone understands that and it's the same kind of issue in respect to an oral presentation.


Carol Off : So the letters and oil statements are just simply that - they make a statement or sign a letter - but the intervenors are obviously more important where they can actually cross-question, and on that list the foreigners appear to be mostly oil companies.


Oliver : Well I was talking about foreign money supporting Canadian intervention. The distinction here which is fundamental is that there are a number of foreign companies who are supplying capital to finance this project. This is the largest industrial project in the entire world. We don't have enough capital in Canada to finance it therefore we have welcomed foreign investment from the US, France, England, China, and other countries - companies who see the economic prospects for the development of our resources and are investing tens of billions of dollars to advance the creation of infrastructure which will help us in our in our historic choice here to diversify our markets to Asia.


Carol Off : But I guess the question is .. the concern here is that foreign influences do not have Canada's best interests in mind. How is it that you can trust the foreign oil companies who are intervening to have Canada's best interests in mind?


Oliver : Because they're investing in Canada and their financial success is tied to the success of the projects which are Canadian projects which will generate employment and economic activity for Canada.


Carol Off : But not necessarily tied to the protection of the Canadian environment and to Aboriginal rights.


Oliver : Those issues have to be dealt with by objective regulatory review which will hear the interests of the Aboriginal communities and of environmental groups. I have no problem and neither does the government have any problem with Canadian environmental groups presenting their case because at the end of the day we want these projects to be safe for the environment and safe for Canada.


Carol Off : Mr Oliver, thank you for your time.
.

Hey Joe, where you goin with that gunk in your hand?

While in Washington oildrumming up K-XL support with US senators yesterday, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver plumped for the Keystone XL pipeline in his keynote address to the 4th Annual United States Energy Association (USEA) Energy Supply Forum.
Here is the quote chosen by Natural Resources Canada "for broadcast use" :

“The future of North America’s economy and our national security is inextricably tied to energy,” said Minister Oliver. “Clearly, it is in both of our interests to ensure that our future oil supply remains stable, secure and developed in an environmentally responsible way.”

Our future oil supply? Really, Joe?
We're still going with the tarsands = North American security model?

For starters, Canada imports half of its oil for domestic use - over a million barrels per day - from various "conflict oil" states, while exporting 65% of its "ethical oil" tarsands crude to the US.

Dear Joe : How does the K-XL proposal to export tarsands - owned in part by the Chinese state - to Texas to be refined by Saudi's Aramco refinery in a Foreign Trade Zone [read: no import/export duties or taxes] so that it can then be shipped off to Europe and Latin America have anything to do with "our national security"?

Exporting Energy Security : Keystone XL Exposed
Interesting report. It contends that there is currently a glut of domestic oil in the US due to increasing vehicle efficiency and slow economic growth, so the real purpose of the K-XL is to make tarsands crude available to the FTZ refineries in Texas which are specifically set up to turn it into diesel for export.

Nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with energy independence, nothing to do with gasoline prices at the pump.
So who is it all you guys are working for again?

The Guardian : Koch company declared 'substantial interest' in Keystone XL pipeline

"In recent months Koch Industries Inc., the business conglomerate run by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, has repeatedly told a U.S. Congressional committee and the news media that the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has "nothing to do with any of our businesses."
But the company has told Canadian energy regulators a different story.

In 2009, Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, an Alberta-based subsidiary of Koch Industries, applied for—and won—"intervenor status" in the National Energy Board hearings that led to Canada's 2010 approval of its 327-mile portion of the pipeline.

In the form it submitted to the Energy Board, Flint Hills wrote that it "is among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters. Consequently, Flint Hills has a direct and substantial interest in the application" for the pipeline under consideration.

The Koch brothers own nearly all of Wichita, Kan.-based Koch Industries, the second-largest private company in the United States. The energy and manufacturing conglomerate earns an estimated $100 billion in annual revenue from its network of subsidiaries—a mix of oil, gas, pipeline, chemical, fertilizer and paper and pulp companies. In addition to its Canadian operation, Koch's Flint Hills subsidiary operates oil refineries in Alaska, Texas and Minnesota as well as a dozen fuel terminals in the Midwest and Texas.

The Koch brothers have donated millions to Republican candidates and conservative movements, bankrolling groups involved in Tea Party causes and in campaigns to deny climate change science and the need for cleaner energy."

.

If it was my home / Hands Across the Sand

.
Go to your beach on June 26 at noon. Join hands. That's it.
NO to Offshore Oil Drilling, YES to Clean Energy

Hands Across the Sand began in Florida in February to "protest the efforts by the Florida Legislature and the US Congress to lift the ban on oil drilling in the near and off shores of Florida."
Well it's a global movement now and here's the Vancouver Canada page.

But don't we already have a ban on tanker traffic and offshore drilling in BC?
Nope.
.
Natural Resources Canada - Review of the Federal Moratorium on Oil and Gas Activities Offshore British Columbia
ERRATA :

The Terms of Reference for the “Report of the Public Review on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region of British Columbia” state that “in 1972, the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound due to concerns over the potential environmental impacts.” However; the moratorium on oil and gas activities offshore British Columbia does not apply to tanker traffic.

Prior to 1972, a number of permits for oil and gas exploration were issued for offshore British Columbia. Due to environmental concerns, rights under those permits were suspended as of 1972 by way of Orders in Council, thus forming a de facto moratorium.

Thank you, Pierre Trudeau, for suspending those offshore oil and gas exploration permits in 1972.
However in 1982 the Canadian government brought in the Canada Oil and Gas Act which allows the permits to be "renegotiated into exploration agreements" and "the time frame for renegotiation to be extended and the rights continued to be valid."
In 1987, the Canada Petroleum Resources Act grandfathered the waiting exploration agreements.

"Thus, the moratorium continues to be maintained through government policy. No
activity can occur until the former permits are converted to exploration licences. The decision not to negotiate with industry to convert those permits is a pure policy decision. There is no statutory impediment to carrying out those negotiations."

Shorter Con : No actual laws against oil tankers or offshore drilling in BC
.
The above "Errata", by the way, were added to the Natural Resources Canada webpage just last year.



.

If it was my home uses Google Maps and the current situation of the Gulf oil spill to show what the extent of the disaster would look like overlaid on your neck of the woods. Click and it will find you.

.

The Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 was 41 million litres of oil. It can still be found under the sand.

US government scientists are now pegging the Gulf Oil disaster at an Exxon Valdez-size spill every 5 to 13 days, with more oil gushing into the sea in an hour than officials originally said was spilling in an entire day.

.

If it was my home ...

h/t Galloping Beaver co-blogger West End Bob for the Hands Across the Sand links.

.

Asbestos vote today at Natural Resources Committee

{updated below}
Dear Prime Minister Harper,

While cutting funds from women's groups and aboriginal healing programs, you want to give $ 250,000.00 of taxpayers' money to the Chrysotile Institute (a registered lobby group for the asbestos industry).

I strongly object to my taxes being given to an asbestos lobby group. The Canadian Cancer Society, health experts and asbestos victims' groups overseas have all appealed to you to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute.

I call on you to stop this callous misuse of public funds immediately. I look forward to receiving your positive reply.

[Your name here.] and it cc's Iggy, Jack, etc at the link.

An estimated 90,000 individuals die annually due to asbestos-related diseases, according to data from the World Health Organization. Canada reportedly mined approximately 150,000 to 200,000 tons of the stuff in 2008 and exported most of it to countries like India and Indonesia where the responsibility for warning workers of its dangers is up to the local government.
The one remaining asbestos mine in Canada, second largest exporter of asbestos in the world, is in the riding of Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis.

At the last meeting of the Committee on Natural Resources, NDP Pat Martin moved to cut the $250,000 funding the department allocates to the Chrysotile Institute. No one supported the motion, and the other committee members - I'm looking at you, Libs - slunk away so there was no longer the quorum necessary for the vote.

That vote will come up again when the committee reconvenes today. Send them a wee nudge via Kathleen Ruff's letter above.

And while you're at it, you might want to add a little note to Christian Paradis, Minister of Asbestos, asking him why the fuck his Natural Resouces Ministry is paying Chrysotile $250,000 in order to lobby him.
.
Noon Update : Today's recorded vote on Natural Resources Committee motion to remove government subsidy to Chrysotile Asbestos Institute : Defeated 9-1
Geoff Regan, Liberal - NO ............ Nathan Cullen, NDP - YES
Navdeep Bains, Liberal - NO ........ Cheryl Gallant, Con - NO
Alan Tonks, Liberal - NO ............. Richard Harris, Con - NO
Paule Brunelle, Bloc - NO ............ David Anderson, Con - NO
Mauril Bélanger, Liberal - NO ...... Bernard Genereux, Con - NO
.