Is the QUEEN selling the oil sands?

Who and what is a Governor General? He or she is the representative of the Queen. The role and responsibilities cover constitutional responsibilities, he or she is the Commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces, he or she represents Canada, encourages excellence, brings Canadians together and grants armorial bearings. All of this is clearly described on the Governor General's own website. The Governor General is not a cheap salesman hawking a product! Governor General David Johnston became just that on Monday November 28^th 2011. He joined the ranks of Ezra Levant to sell the oil sands for PM Harper. As the representative of the Queen he has overstepped the boundaries of his authority and has to be removed from his position. Unless it is the Queen herself who wishes to publicly state that she, her Royal Highness approves of the Alberta oil sands, its production and sale. For in fact Governor General David Johnston has done exactly that.

I now quote from Derek Abma of the National Post, (November 28, 2011): “Governor General David Johnston waded into Canada's oil sands debate Monday, praising the industry as a “Great Canadian development.” According to Derek Abma of the National Post, Governor General David Johnston brought up the issue of the oil sands in a question-and-answer session after his formal speech. I have read the formal speech as presented by the Governor General and in it he avoided all questions or points regarding the oil sands. In bringing up these points after his formal speech he overstepped his authority beyond any acceptable level. Quoting again from Derek Alba of the National Post, Governor General David Johnston said, “I know there's a controversy about the oil sands, but that's a great Canadian development, those are resources that were of no use to anyone {until} Samuel Hearne discovered them.” Agent Orange was thought to be a pesticide. Nuclear fusion and nuclear research thought to be beneficial till it devastated Japan and brought the world to the brink of mass destruction. We as human beings strive to explore, to discover it is our nature, yet hope in our maturity to know better is the only safeguard.

Governor General David Johnston has a position of power in the public's eye. He represents the Queen and all her powers with authority to dissolve the government of a sovereign country. He went on to say (again quoting from Derek Abma of the National Post's story) “The challenge is for us to mine {the oil sands} in improved, increasingly economically sustainable ways.” There lies the very essence of the whole issue of the oil sands. It is not the environment, the future of our planet or that of our children and grandchildren, Canadian, British, Chinese and alike, it is pure economics. We simply live in a world where greed and a lust for power is overwhelming.

Regardless whether one accepts the reasoning behind the basic need of power and greed it is still difficult to fully understand the motivation behind Governor General David Johnston's public support and selling of the oil sands. As per the Governor General's web page: “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen of Canada.” Governor General Johnston has in fact given the very public approval and support of the Queen for the oil sands. How was this possible, or why? Further research provides an alarming answer.

Governor General David Johnston overstepped his very public position and authority as the representative of the Queen. There is no question that he should be removed from his post by the Queen. To answer why he had done this is an alarming realization just how those in power see us all as pawns even acceptable collateral damage.

I quote Johnston's predecessor Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean, in a letter I received from Rideau Hall, with full lion's crest. These were the words I read: “As you know, the role of the Governor General in Canada's parliamentary democracy is strictly non-partisan.” Governor General Johnston has shown the hypocrisy and the lies behind those words. Using the weight of his position and his title he sold to the world the oil sands. WHY?

The world is joining in a voice that is alarming to Prime Minister Harper. He is sitting on a monstrous pile of wealth, and through wealth, power. It is detrimental to all, in its extraction and as a refined product. Not only environmentalists, but government officials, Nobel recipients, scientists and ordinary people are joining together to tell Canada that our oil sands are a danger in the end to us all. Yet PM Harper has a partner, becoming less silent through such acts as of the Governor General.

A recent headline in the London Guardian reads: “UK secretly helping Canada push its 'dirty oil' fuel,” (November 27,2011). In this UK Guardian story information is revealed how British top officials promised to help Canada to overturn the European Union's move to label the oil sands as a 'dirty' product or a high-pollution product. Whilst the British Prime Minister David Cameron “campaigned on a pledge to provide the greenest government ever” (from The Globe & Mail by Doug Saunders, November 28,2011).

British Petroleum, or BP on its own official website has this to offer. “BP is involved in three oil sands projects, all of which are located in the province of Alberta. Development of the Sunrise Energy Project, our joint venture with Husky Energy, is under way, with production expected to start in 2014. The other two proposed projects, Pike and Terre de Grace, are being appraised for development.” Who can forget that BP was responsible for the worst oil leak in US history, destroying not only the environment in the southern United States but putting innocent lives and livelihood at risk. As the facts slowly emerged surrounding that disaster one point was clear, cost cutting to increase profit was the major concern for BP.

As you read this official web page by BP, British Petroleum a frightening realization comes tingling down the spine from these words under the heading 'Commercial viability of oil sands projects.' “BP requires oil sands projects, like all its investments, to be commercially viable over the life of the project. In gauging this, we factor in BP's view on carbon pricing and carbon regulation evolution; economic forecasts, such as fluctuations in the oil price; and potential policy changes, such as national legislation intended to address climate change.” What can be more frightening than the realization that these words bring. Now put all the pieces of the puzzle together that have occurred slowly.

On September 19^th 2011 Environment Minister Peter Kent states that Ottawa will not bring out new rules for greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands this year. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests in Britain by The Cooperative and Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace reveal high-level government officials from both the UK and Canada meeting with senior oil industry executives. Although many of these documents are heavily censored with page size black blocks, e-grams sent between high ranking British government representatives show intense lobbying by the British to bring about a compromise to the European Union Commission. The European Commission has recommended oil sands derived fuel be given a greenhouse gas rating of 107 grams per mega joule, 22% higher than the 87.5 grams rating given to fuel from conventional crude oil. Canada and its officials had been caught off guard by the EU Commission and had no real strategy to deal with this. Briefing notes on meetings held by British Foreign Secretary, British Foreign Offices America's director with Canadian officials leave no doubt how Canada was unprepared to handle the EU Commission and the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive). In one such note between the British Foreign Secretary and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird it says: “Canada was surprised by the rapid timetable for the Commission's FQD proposal but welcomed {the UK's} approach.” (from Jason Fekete, Postmedia News, November 28,2011).

Environment Minister Kent went on to say, “We're doing all this with a sensitivity not to strand capital, threaten jobs or impact consumer pricing” (National Post, September 19,2011). At home Harper and Kent used Levant's 'Ethical Oil' to sell its dirty oil. Though much of that has faltered. Levant and Ethical Oil rely on attack without any facts or evidence. Canada cannot afford a loud vocal opposition to the oil sands as dirty oil. Nor can it really afford the Kyoto Protocol to survive.

Canada has been caught flat-footed by the EU and has 'mama' Britain quietly helping. The British have a huge stake in the Alberta oil sands with both BP (British Petroleum) and Shell expanding their already huge investments. Yet the embarrassing truth is oozing out with documents showing how every attempt has been made by British government representatives to stall the EU and the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive) decision. As posted by The Guardian's Damian Carrington, a portion of a letter sent to The Guardian by LIBDEM minister responsible for the UK's transport fuel's policy Norman Baker, tries to defend the help the British have given Canada and the oil sands. Damian Carrington calls this letter “laughable.”

Norman Baker's letter states this: “To be clear, we are not delaying action in any way, but we are seeking an effective solution to address the carbon emissions from all highly polluting crudes, not simply those from one particular country.” The EU proposals do not target any one particular country, and the UK compromise to put crude into three bands of emissions: high, medium and low, is designed to stall the decision by the EU. Yet in a copy of an email (obtained through the Freedom of Information by UK environmental agencies and Greenpeace) dated September 27^th 2011, between Deputy High Commissioner Corin Robertson and Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of For Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAIT), Subject: Fuel Quality Directive, it states: “...we are now reaching out to EU member states through our diplomatic missions to explain the UK's position on the FQD.” Most importantly where Norman Baker claimed, “we are not delaying action in any way” in his letter to The Guardian in late November, this followed in the email. “We are acknowledging that devising an effective and practical system will be challenging, especially one that will avoid resulting in extra costs for industry and consumers. We know that working out how to track crude as it goes through the complex refining and transportation system will be difficult and may take time to get right.” So much for not intentionally delaying action.

Yet as the war for the future of our planet heats up apposing politics and big business a new trend is coming to the surface that is alarming. In the letter by Norman Baker the LIBDEM minister, it is the last paragraph, where he blames environmentalists for the controversy. “I have challenged green NGO's to come up with a solution so we can address the carbon problems of all crude sources as soon as possible. So far I have been met with silence.” Damian Carrington of The Guardian had this response from John Sauveu of Greenpeace, ”together with the majority of European governments, we're enthusiastic supporters of the (existing) European plan to prevent the most polluting fuel from entering our filling stations. So Baker is completely wrong to say we haven't put forward a solution to the problem of tar sands.”

Here in Canada it is Sun Media that has led the attack against environmentalists. First with Ezra Levant and his Ethical Oil. Levant used a mythical creature he named Zoe, a make-believe

individual to ridicule and insult as an environmentalist. Most of what Levant had said has been seen for its real value, hot air, insults instead of fact. Still Alykhan Velshi who ran EthicalOil.org has been rewarded with a post at the Prime Minister's Office, he will soon become the director of planning. Velshi claimed that the “grassroots” EthicalOil.org was “100% independent of government and industry.” It is clear how much truth there has been in anything coming from EthicalOil.org or anyone associated to it.

British Minister Norman Baker accuses environmentalists in his letter to a British newspaper. Lorrie Goldstein Senior Associate Editor of the Toronto Sun goes much further. Goldstein calls environmentalists “dishonest cowards.” He goes on to say that “the green movement has deep roots in anti-western, anti-capitalist, anti-development and anti-growth ideologies...” he continues with, “environmentalists, particularly in Europe, are Marxists, who were put out of business when the Soviet Union collapsed...” Not surprising that Ezra Levant is part of the Sun Media organization.

True there are those who are recognized as environmentalists and who push the boundaries of ethics and credibility with elves, Santa evictions to raise a buck. As there are Sun Medias in the world of journalism, where truth, honesty and ethics may be seriously questioned. But the world is raising its voice to Canada, telling us it's time for honesty and ethics in the real sense. The realities cannot be ignored nor covered up with insults and attacks. Alberta's own Auditor General in his report, “pointed a finger at Suncor Energy Inc. SU-T which has submitted tailings pond emissions estimates that don't include carbon dioxide at all, and are based on old measurements at a pond that no longer exists” (The Globe & Mail by Nathan Vanderklippe and Shawn McCarthy, November 23,2011).

Now it is time to ask is 'dirty really ethical'? Reports coming from Durban South Africa are sounding off alarm bells not only in relation to ethics but of the integrity of a nation. Environment Minister Kent has made enough public statements to the effect that Canada is planning to dump the Kyoto Protocol. His reasons, or at least those given publicly are an insult to intelligence. In an interview with South African High Commissioner Mohau Pheko at the South African High Commission in Ottawa by Mike De Souza (Postmedia News, December 3,2011), Pheko said “she was particularly disturbed by Kent's recent suggestions that he would take a hard line approach against developing nations and challenge founding principles of the existing international climate change agreements that require developed countries to take responsibility for causing the environmental threat over the past 150 years.”

Canada claims that the world's two biggest polluters of carbon China and the US are not taking part in the Kyoto Protocol. South African High Commissioner Mohan Pheko said that her country has been approached by other nations in vulnerable positions that have been lobbied by Canada to leave the treaty. She said: “we must also recall that many of things are linked to aid packages and there's arm twisting.” How does this rate on the ethical scale? What is the reason for Canada to play such a game?

According to Bloomberg, “Canada the country furthest from meeting its commitment to cut carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol may save as much as $6.7 billion by exiting the global change agreement and not paying for offset credits.” Can it be that the consideration of the mighty dollar be a stronger motivator here? Or is it that Canada has a problem on the international stage, its reputation damaged as an environmentally ethical member of the world community. Out of the 191 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol Canada would be the first to annul its emission-reduction obligations. According to Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Toronto, “Canada is the only country in the world saying it won't honour Kyoto.” The reasons for this are becoming more clear than Minister Kent would like. According to the Pembina Institute emissions of carbon from oil sands production has risen to about 6.5% of Canada's total from about 1% in 1990, that figure will likely double by 2020.

So what is the truth here? Rick George chief executive officer of Suncor Energy Inc (SU) said, “Kyoto no longer works, whatever happens with Kyoto won't change our direction.” (Bloomberg, December 4,2011). This is from Canada's largest oil producer, the same Suncor Energy Inc (SU) that the Alberta Auditor General pointed a finger at for submitting pond emissions for a pond that no longer exists, and submitting “tailings pond emissions for a pond that don't include carbon dioxide at all.” It is also the same Suncor Energy Inc (SU) that is responsible for an oil leak at the Commerce City Colorado refinery, potentially putting at risk the South Platte River the source of Denver's drinking water. Suncor Energy faces $130,000 in penalties for more than two dozen health and safety violations at the refinery in Commerce City. Suncor allegedly failed to test monitors properly for hydrogen sulfide, a toxic and flammable gas, and failed to follow safety standards while processing hazardous chemicals, according to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which issued the citations (National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Promise November, 30,2011).

According to Josh Mogerman a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defence Council in relation to the Commerce City refinery spill, “If the leak involves tar sands diluted bitumen, the contamination could be more severe, tar sands diluted bitumen spills are associated with significantly more submerged oil, which cannot be contained by surface booms.”

In response to the objections to the oil sands mining process there has been a change in the process of bringing up the bitumen. Peter Fairley's story in the current issue of MIT's Technology Review talks of “in situ” harvesting. The process pumps superheated steam underground to melt the bitumen in place before sucking out the mixture for processing. This form of deep mining for the bitumen reduces the number of trees brought down and erosion runoff into streams and waterways. Yet Fairley's warning is alarming. “It creates more than twice the production emissions of conventional oil sands mining. Independent experts say that by the time the bitumen is refined and delivered to gas stations across the United States, it has already accounted for two or three times as much greenhouse gas per gallon of fuel as gasoline refined from conventional crude.” That being said combined with the fact that “much of the region has moved to 'in situ' harvesting” (Forbes, Erica Gies, founder of ThisWeekInEarth.com) then more light shines on Canada's fear of the EU Commission and the FQD (Fuel Quality Directive) and the Kyoto Protocol.

According to a Peter Fairley blog post “Cenovus Energy has achieved a 15% reduction in energy use per barrel of bitumen with a hybrid extraction method combining butane and steam, and says optimizing the process could cut another 15%. N-Soly is testing a purely solvent-based process, eliminating steam altogether in a bid to slash greenhouse gas emissions per barrel by 80 to 90 percent.”

One should warn Ezra Levant at EthicalOil.org and PM Harper that this is not really the answer. Butane and propane are extremely volatile and warnings by the US Department of Labour are alarming in relation to our human health impact. When industry uses the term 'solvents' they are quite vague and the results could cause toxicity to the nervous system, reproductive damage, liver, kidney and respiratory damage and cancer. More of a concern is with the potential leaching of these 'solvents' into soil or water supplies and the cost to human safety then. All of this looks good in the press, it shows that the industry is trying to address environmental concerns. Or is it only a public relations exercise that will result in a greater threat.

Canada and its partners, particularly in Britain, know that the voices against the oil sands are becoming louder. Pressure is mounting with the EU and its Fuel Quality Directive, something that Canada can not really afford. According to Greenpeace's Keith Stewart Canada has not implemented a policy to reach its targets, remember Environment Minister Kent delaying GHG (greenhouse gas) rules “with a sensitivity not to strand capital,” so the Kyoto Protocol is a threat. The British are doing all they can to help protect, shelter and promote the oil sands and its billions of dollars. New mining technology such as the 'in situ' harvesting or the testing of a combination of butane and steam or unnamed solvents is more frightening than exciting for the future of our environment.

When Joe Oliver, Canada's Minister for Natural Resources said, “you can turn off your lights and freeze in the dark, the alternative is to use the energy, which of course you are using, everybody is using,” the sheer arrogance of these words should of been both alarming and an awakening. I simply watch my seventy-plus year old neighbour across the road get in his red truck for the fourth time today for his journey to pick up the peeling lottery tickets, and realize how much does rest in our hands.

Joe Oliver went on to say, “If the world doesn't want our oil, it doesn't have to buy our oil.” It is such intelligence that has driven the British to shudder in embarrassment. When Governor General David Johnston made his statements at an official function in his official position praising the oil sands industry as a “great Canadian development,” are they to be taken as the words of Her Majesty the Queen. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SO! Governor General David Johnston said “I know there's a controversy about the oil sands, but that's a great Canadian development.” Those words have put the endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen on the oil sands. Under no circumstances can this be allowed. He must be removed! Governor General Johnston said “I know there is a controversy...” The world is voicing its opposition even though Britain is trying its hardest to promote the oil sands. British Prime Minister Cameron, ministers like Norman Baker and others may also play their secret dirty games behind doors yet the Governor General has no right or authority to do so. Again from the Governor General's own website: “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State, the Governor General is the representative of the Queen in Canada.”

There is a great deal to examine regarding the oil sands. It is the future of our world, what we leave for our children and our grandchildren. A reality should tingle down Minister Joe Oliver's spine and that is the simple law of supply and demand. If we curb our demand then you simply have to cut the supply. But can we?

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

ETHICAL OIL vs. ETHICAL TOBACCO

Ezra Levant penned the term Ethical Oil to sell the idea that the Alberta oil sands provides a product somehow more acceptable than what we import from the Middle East or elsewhere. Prime Minister Harper and Environment Minister Kent have adopted this label and need someone like Ezra Levant to sell the oil sands publicly. So what has derailed the combined plans of the Prime Minister and TransCanada?

The Keystone XL pipeline was planned to carry the crude oil from Alberta cutting through six states across the US to Texas refineries. It is claimed that this oil from a good and stable neighbour would allow the US to cut its umbilical chord of dependance on oil imports from less stable and nasty foreign imports. An environmental assessment report prepared for the State Department said that there would be little environmental impact. Hilary Clinton and the State Department were preparing to label the Keystone XL pipeline in the national interest of America and its future. Everything seemed to be progressing as planned. TransCanada had even been allowed to impose Eminent Domain action against landowners who refused access onto their properties for the pipeline.

Environmentalists and activists across the country raised their voices in opposition and the truth began to surface. What was touted as a clear environmental assessment became suspect as it was made public that the company that prepared the report for the State Department had strong financial ties to TransCanada. Questions surrounding the impact of the pipeline on the largest freshwater supply in the mid west could no longer be ignored. With an election leering ever closer the pressure on the White House grew. So on November 10^th 2011 it was announced officially that the decision by the State Department to approve the Keystone XL pipeline will be postponed till after the 2012 election. There are requests now that TransCanada re-route a portion of the planned pipeline as questions of potential impact on the Ogallala Aquifer had been raised. Most important a new environmental assessment is now planned one that would be far less bias towards the project.

A great victory has been won by environmentalists and ordinary people willing to stand up against what seemed to be insurmountable odds. It is perhaps the first time that environment and its concerns has won over not only the oil industry, but over big business as a whole. I will never accept the comment posted by Mark Mattson of the Ontario Waterkeeper on Facebook that the US has become our Canadian conscience. As an environmentalist I am proud to have witnessed this victory. As a realist I also am aware that if not for an election nearing, where tens of millions of dollars will be spent to keep Obama in office, this victory would most likely not of been possible. That statement that the US has become the Canadian conscience is insulting and obscene, though I am sad to say our federal government under the helm of Prime Minister Harper has no care for the environment for the impact we have on the future. Perhaps that is why Ezra Levant was able to give birth to Ethical Oil here in Canada.

Ezra Levant hails from Alberta and Ethical Oil is his baby. True it has been accepted with open arms by Prime Minister Harper, Environment Minister Kent and Natural Resources Minister Oliver. Canada clearly wants to become a super exporter of oil at any cost. The stage was set for Ezra Levant and Ethical Oil, though the argument put forward by Levant is based on little fact other than Canada is a stable country, oh and friendly, very friendly to business partners.

As you read the biography available on Wikipedia about Ezra Levant one point comes across loud and clear, he is a hell of a salesman. I think Ezra Levant could sell ice to an Eskimo and make him believe that it is the one thing he cannot live without. His Ethical Oil claims that the oil produced from Alberta sold to our neighbours the Americans, or for that matter anyone else, is better than the oil imported form nasty parts of the world such as the Middle East or elsewhere. After all Canada is a clean cut country concerned with human rights, freedom of speech and a democracy worth emulating. As a proud Canadian that is the only part that I agree with in the argument put forward by Levant and Ethical Oil. The rest is a farce and an insult.

Ezra Levant's connection to Prime Minister Harper is documented well enough. It was Levant who stepped aside to allow Harper a seat and begin his trek for power. Harper needed to sell the Alberta oil sands to the public and Ezra Levant stepped forward with his Ethical Oil. How is any oil ethical?

I don't think any of us, in any part of the world, would argue the point that smog is becoming a serious health hazard in our cities. Air quality is not something that has been devised as a sinister plot by environmentalists or radicals. It is a frightening reality we have to deal with each year. Ontario's Ministry of the Environment states:

“the contaminates that create smog are released during the combustion of fossil fuels in our vehicles, power plants, factory boilers and homes. More than half of our smog problems comes from south of the border.”

Ministry of the Environment continues its advice to drive less, far more car-pooling and avoiding gas lawnmowers. Environment America it its 2010 Smog Rankings labelled California as the smoggiest state in the US with 418 smog days, 53 red-alert days and 2 purple-alert days. Red-alert days are when an individual could experience adverse health affects due to the extremely poor air quality. Purple-alert days are when the air is deemed so unhealthy that citizens were alerted to limit outdoor exposure. In Toronto we did far better with only 8 smog alert days in 2010 according to Environment Canada. Though poor air quality has been a contributor to 1700 early deaths and 6000 hospital visits each year. How do we ignore these facts? Is it possible to listen to Ezra Levant and his insane analogies of fictitious Zoes? Our addiction to fossil fuels, to oil, is no less in Canada as it is in the US. Here in St. Catharines we do not have highways stacked on stilts. Though I have a neighbour across the road in his seventies who gets into his red truck at least four times a day, every day to drive several blocks to the local corner store to buy his little peel away lottery tickets! His neighbour from early spring through to autumn wheels out his lawn mower every other week. We cannot see past our addiction yet it is no less lethal than that of a heroin user. And Ezra I am not Zoe, I have been past West Hamilton and nor am I a vegetarian.

The arguments put forward for Ethical Oil regardless which one chooses are not based on fact. Ezra Levant, TransCanada, US Republicans and even Harper and his crew all say that Alberta's oil sands will make the US non reliant on oil imports. Yet the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers predicts that even if Canadian oil imports double by 2020 that still only accounts for less than 25% of America's consumption needs. Most of the oil needed by the US will still have to be imported from somewhere else. In response to Levant's Ethical Oil and attacks on imports form Saudi Arabia or other areas, The Petroleum Economist, an international oil industry journal that has monitored the oil industry since the 1930's stated that Levant's book was filled with “strange arguments...” The journal also explained how producers of Middle Eastern oil had “deployed their wealth to prop up western financial institutions during the recession preventing a complete economic collapse” (rabble.ca)

As one dissects all that has been brought forward by Levant and his Ethical Oil, and by those who support the Alberta oil sands it becomes clear that facts are missing or totally ignored. Levant calls Canada an ethical country and attacks the Middle Eastern countries on various grounds, even bringing in a new face to continue the attack. Ethical Oil's new spokesperson Kathryn Marshall authored on Huffington Post a piece titled “Care About Women's Rights? Support Ethical Oil.” Who at Ethical Oil really cares for anyone's rights? Levant attacks everyone: homosexuals, human rights advocates and environmentalists. Using a woman's face to sing the song about woman's rights is simply another crass salesman's trick. Although Canada can be proud of its system of government and way of life we hang our heads in shame over the horrors of the G20 Summit in Toronto of 2010. On a more basic and local level in St. Catharines Ontario discussions of a massive expenditure proposal for the city and its taxpayers brought this response from its mayor, Mayor Brian McMullan as reported by a local newspaper Niagara this Week, October 27 Mayor Brian McMullan said, “...that using public opinion has never been a policy of this council.” How ethical is that? Didn't the public vote Mayor McMullan and council in?

Levant represents Sun Media and extolls the ethical values of oil from such an ethical neighbour as Canada. In St. Catharines the local newspaper The Standard owned by Sun Media, lied about evidence of a corrupt act by the incumbent mayoral candidate in the municipal elections of 2010. Reporters, Marlene Bergsma and Peter Downs lied and had their lies printed so as to influence the result of an election, all the information available on Mayorgate. I guess that's real ethics at work.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper had this to say: “Canada will be looking for a buyer, we're a resource-based, energy-based country and we'll be looking at all opportunities.” (National Post, Kelly McParland, Nov. 11.11) So we are now preparing for pipelines form Alberta to the BC Coast to ship the oil sands crude to China. At the Mexico Climate Change Summit of 2010 two countries were the loudest voices against any concrete initiative, one of them was China. China now ranks as the world's largest emitter of carbon sending over 6.5 million metric tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere a year. Canada's ethics are simply based in dollars nothing else.

Canada's 'ethics' are not only concerned with pipelines to BC to supply China and Asian markets but also efforts to convince the European Union not to label oil sands crude as inherently polluting under a new fuel quality directive. Quoting directly from the European Commission Transport & Environment, Fuel Quality Monitoring report:

“In April 2009, Directive 2009/30/EC was adopted which revises the Fuel Quality Directive (Directive 98/70/EC). It amends a number of elements of the petrol and diesel specifications as well as introducing in Article 7a a requirement on fuel supplies to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of energy supplied for road transport (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). In addition the Directive establishes sustainability criteria that must be met by biofuels if they are to count towards the greenhouse gas industry reduction obligation.”

Europeans are making serious attempts at controlling greenhouse gas emissions and are serious about climate change initiatives. Canada on the other hand has stated that we “will not bring out new rules for greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands in May” (National Post, John Ivison Sept. 19,2011). Minister Kent added that Prime Minister Harper has made it clear that the economy is his first concern. I guess the fact that producing and refining tar sands oil is energy-intensive, and releases 82% more greenhouse gas emissions, as well as more poisonous mercury and arsenic, compared to conventional oil, is not on Harper's or Kent's minds. It is simply dirty oil and using the end product in our vehicles will add more stress to an already dangerous situation.

The European Commission continues, “The new standards will not only make petrol, diesel and gasoil 'cleaner' but will also allow the introduction of vehicles and machinery that pollute less. A key measure is that, to encourage the development of lower-carbon fuels and biofuels, suppliers will have to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the production, transport and use of their fuels by 10% between 2011 and 2020. This will cut emissions by a cumulative total of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020.”

Environment Minister Kent is quoted as saying “At Environment Canada our business is protecting the environment. We collaborate with our partners at home and abroad to realize concrete progress on initiatives that will protect the health of our people, our species and our planet...” (Ottawa Nov. 10, 2011/CNW-Canada News Wire). But the truth, well it tells a different story after all.

Canada's dirty oil has already damaged and polluted our neighbour's waters and communities. The oil sands spill into the Kalamazoo River will total a whopping $700 million dollar clean-up. The effect of nearly 4 million litres of toxic tar sands crude oil into the river has been devastating to local communities. It followed a rupture of the Lakehead Pipeline 6B belonging to Enbridge Energy Partners. Marshall a town near the Kalamazoo River has residents, many of them children with serious rashes on their bodies, vomiting and memory loss, others have had seizures, yet all were healthy before the spill. It is ironic to see the photo on Bernie Sanders' report 'Tar sands oil and Keystone XL's dirty little secret' (guardia.co.uk. Nov. 10 2011). This photo is of a Canada goose trying to fly out of the Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Michigan.

President Obama released this statement: “Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed.” Yet in reality this has not been totally an environmental win but simply the power of politics. 'Tis the season of elections and tens of millions of dollars to be spent for a win. Nebraska senators who fought the pipeline have now seen the TransCanada 'light' and are true believers with a new route. After all TransCanada has spent millions of dollars already and has the full support of Canada's government. Prime Minister Harper and his ministers Kent and Oliver share the same ethical hypocrisy. They use stooges (or if you prefer muses) such as Ezra Levant and Kathryn Marshall to sell their ethics. In the end we're in for a buck and Canada's dirty oil will follow.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com

MAYOR MCMULLAN attempts shutdown of MAYORGATE

Mayorgate began as a voice against voluntary censorship imposed by the local press when breaches of the Municipal Act had been uncovered. In a democratic society the media cannot decide what and if the public should know, facts are simply reported, opinions expressed in editorials. In St. Catharines the mayor and a city councillor conspired to 'fix' a lawful by-law fine. A telephone answering machine message was left in her own voice by the councillor confirming that the fine had been taken care of. Little left to the imagination and nothing left to argue. It is not within the power of a mayor to interfere with a lawful by-law fine after normal channels of objection had been exhausted.

On September 1, 2011 a letter had been delivered from Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP, signed by a Christopher J. Bittle. Mayor Brian McMullan has made an attempt to silence the truth and shutdown Mayorgate. As a candidate in the Municipal Election of 2010 I received a phone call from Mayor Brian McMullan on October 22, in the short conversation he wished me luck for the election in a condescending voice and then said, “you called me corrupt in your blog I have referred this to my Toronto lawyers.” I made this threat public on Mayorgate and waited. In August of 2010 Councillor Jennie Stevens, the owner of the telephone answering machine voice, threatened me with her solicitor, I recorded her and posted the threat on Mayorgate and waited. Now I receive this letter signed by Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP with a threat of legal action if I don't shut down Mayorgate, read it for yourselves.

My response to you Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP is a public one. Mayor Brian McMullan contravened with full intent the Municipal Act and his Oath of Office. Yet that was only the beginning of the slippery slide into destruction of our democratic process. Since receiving your letter and after advice I had sent all the details to the Law Society of Upper Canada. I have posted a copy of my letter to the Society and their response dated September 26, 2011.

Mayor Brian McMullan and Councillor Jennie Stevens breached the Municipal Act and their Oath of Office, yet that was not enough. Arrogance and ego are a dangerous cocktail when followed by a shot of fear. Mayor McMullan further breached the Municipal Elections Act with illegal contributions for his re-election campaign of 2010. You Christopher J. Bittle joined Lancaster, Brooks & Welch in only 2010? Are you originally from St. Catharines? You sent this letter to me the day you got the judgement against Preston Haskell (fully covered in Mayorgate Case Study: Andrew Gill vs. Preston Haskell), was it that success that prevented you from researching the facts?

Illegal campaign funds were quite the story here only a few months ago. The Standard had done the usual thing for Mayor McMullan until Doug Herod brought out the true facts on McMullan's illegal contributions. Though Mayorgate had done a full story on the issue posting even copies of Mayor Brian McMullan's financial statements prior to Doug Harod's piece. The individual who brought the public attention of the whole issue of illegal campaign funds and breach of the Municipal Elections Act was Eleanor Lancaster.

Eleanor Lancaster submitted an audit request and it was stamped at the City Clerk's office in St. Catharines on June 23^rd 2011. The deadline for all financial reports to be filed by all candidates was March 25^th 2011 by 2:00pm. Any request for audits had to be filed within ninety (90) days of the last day for filing financial reports that gave a deadline for the filing of a request for audit June 25^th 2011.

Eleanor Lancaster filed her request for audit of campaign funds for Brian Dorsey, Matthew Harris, Mathew Siscoe and Len Stack, all City of St. Catharines Council candidates, plus Tim Rigby and Andy Petrowski both Regional Council Candidates. She claimed to have made an error on both Tim Rigby and Andy Petrowski in that she filed her audit request at the City of St. Catharines City Clerk, yet both were Regional Council candidates. Mind you she had two more days and could of remedied her 'error' and filed correctly for both of the regional council candidates.

So both Tim Rigby and Andy Petrowski escaped any glare of a formal audit request on an excuse that Eleanor Lancaster made a mistake to come to the City Clerk of St. Catharines to file her paperwork. Eleanor Lancaster was a regional councillor? The most alarming point though was Eleanor Lancaster said “she chose not to challenge McMullan's campaign financing because the 2010 mayor election wasn't much of a contest.” So Eleanor Lancaster decided to pick and choose who would face the consequences for illegal contributions. This statement also makes it rather clear that she was aware that Mayor Brian McMullan had illegal contributions, that Brian McMullan breached the Municipal Elections Act. In fact Mayor Brian McMullan had amongst the greatest number of illegal contributions! Eleanor Lancaster decided who would face the consequences of breach of the Municipal Elections Act, not the Charter of Rights which guarantees all Canadians equality before and under the law. Eleanor Lancaster decided she would in fact become the judge, jury and prosecutor in the case of Brian McMullan. When the Audit Committee under the committee chairwoman Margo Pinder made its decision, Eleanor Lancaster filed her appeal. Only the four are facing this final round: Len Stack, Matt Harris, Mat Siscoe and Brian Dorsey.

Now come the dangerous questions. Mayor Brian McMullan was intentionally left out by Eleanor Lancaster, arguably McMullan had the most illegal campaign contributions. Now Mayor Brian McMullan has Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch launch an attempt to shutdown Mayorgate. Eleanor Lancaster is the widow of the late Harry Hamilton (Bud) Lancaster. Mr. Harry Hamilton (Bud) Lancaster was the nephew of Edward Hamilton (Ted) Lancaster, son of Edward Arthur Lancaster founder of the law firm. Throughout the public spectacle of the announcement of the audit request by Eleanor Lancaster, the Audit Committee under the helm of Margo Pinder, Mayor Brian McMullan was unrelenting. He would say that he would refer to his campaign auditor, no more! Mayorgate posted a copy of his financial statement, one that Brian McMullan had to sign before a witness of the City Clerk's office. According to Marlene Bergsma of The Standard, “Mayor Brian McMullan has said he is till awaiting information from his campaign auditor about the appearance of multiple donations to his campaign.” It makes me think of another great Canadian politician and brown envelopes.

Eleanor Lancaster is quoted by Marlene Bergsma as saying in relation to the financial statements of those she requested audits on “a very blatant indication they had received multiple donations from related companies.” Look at the McMullan financial statement! “Lancaster said when she was a politician, she experienced pressure from donors who expected her to vote according to their interests,” by Marlene Bergsma. Eleanor Lancaster is quoted again by Bergsma, “I recall being jumped on by a contributor when I didn't vote the way he wanted me to.” Eleanor Lancaster a widow of Harry Hamilton (Bud) Lancaster, one of the Lancasters of the Lancaster, Brooks and Welch LLP.

Mayor Brian McMullan who has Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch say in his letter of September 1^st 2011 to me, “...remarks are patently false and not supported by any facts.” Throughout the whole censorship of the direct evidence provided on the ticket fixing no denial is possible of the facts. Throughout the attempts to intentionally lie about the evidence by The Standard during the municipal election campaign, no denial is possible of the facts. Throughout the public revelation of lies by NRP officers on official police documents, no denial is possible of the facts. Throughout the public spectacle of illegal campaign funds, no denial is possible of the facts. Brian McMullan had illegal campaign funds, to only have one comment on his breach of the Municipal Elections Act, loudly reported on Mayorgate of referring to his campaign auditor was arrogance at its most vulgar.

Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch writes... “Even the domain name of the Website is intended to suggest that Mr. McMullan is engaged in a political scandal.” By the way Bittle I corrected 'McMullen's' spelling for you as I quoted you. Eleanor Lancaster intentionally left out Mayor Brian McMullan out of her audit request and subsequent appeal. Eleanor Lancaster is the widow of Harry Hamilton (Bud) Lancaster, of the law firm Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP. Christopher J. Bittle is a lawyer for LANCASTER, BROOKS & WELCH LLP. Mayor Brian McMullan who was left out by Eleanor Lancaster now has employed Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP to try and silence the truth. A family photographer of Eleanor and Harry (Bud) Lancaster said it was common knowledge who Eleanor Lancaster was married to. Mayor Brian McMullan are you going to say that you didn't know? Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch you didn't see anything wrong?

To you Mayor Brian McMullan I repeat that I can't wait to dance with you in public over this. I have said that to you before on the pages of Mayorgate. Now comes the final piece of evidence of the NRP involvement and it's a shock worth waiting for.

Mayorgate will not back down on the values it stands for. Equality of law for all not what the NRP have displayed. Access to truth and facts and not voluntary censorship or lies as displayed by The Standard. Accountability from our elected regardless if their arrogance or ego refuses. Selective Justice is always blind justice. Canada is for all CANADIANS not for the selected few.

Much has been revealed piece by piece here on Mayorgate in relation to the original issue of a fine that was fixed. Still the greatest question has lingered, how did a matter which involved a breach of the Municipal Act warrant the involvement of the police. Matters such as these are not police jurisdiction and in themselves are not criminal code violations. The interference of an elected public official in issues such as by-law fines is a breach of the Municipal Act. Although it is a very serious matter and the consequences far from light still the question hangs in the air.

Enter the Niagara Regional Police Service once again and the questions become deeper and darker. It is an election campaign and the truth very dangerous. Public lies had been printed by the local newspaper, yet that still had no success on removing the potential harm of the issue. A detective is dispatched to interview the individual who had the by-law fine issued to him. Why? Who sent this detective? In his written report, his incident report GO#2010-100048, no complainant is identified. The detective in the opening page states: “As a result of this phone message...” Was this only relayed to the NRP as a tip of some kind? As you read this incident report much of the situation comes to question, in particular what had happened in the closing days of the municipal election of 2010.

A candidate in the mayoral race had made accusations of hackers and of corruption at City Hall. This candidate made these accusations in public through the local press, his name David D'Intino. He had no knowledge of any facts only public accusations. Mayorgate never made claims of corruption at City Hall, nor did Mayorgate make any claims of wrong doing of any staff at City Hall. Mayorgate did bring forward publicly evidence of a fine illegally interfered with in terms of the Municipal Act. The evidence was clear with the voice recording of a city councillor confirming the fact. Mr. D'Intino knew nothing of the facts and whatever his personal motivations only made public accusations. His, D'Intino's claim that his e-mail or computer was hacked again was an accusation motivated by his own choice. In incident report #2010-100048 (still on the first page) Detective Harris states: “...had no personal knowledge of the specifics of the allegations or of the parties involved...” One would ask then why say anything, why blurt out public accusations, when one has no personal knowledge of fact? What could be the motivation behind such an act? Still the NRP detective came to interview the individual who received the by-law fine.

The detective on page 3 states, “that this was in fact not a City of St. Catharines By-Law Offences Notice...” He goes on to say that this only advises of the existence of a by-law. In the detective's conclusion, Detective Harris states, “was not in fact an offence notice but was merely a generic notice...”

Now look at the actual ticket that was issued, you've already read why it had been ripped, I am just glad Mark had second thoughts on dumping the darn thing. On top of the ticket it is clearly stated with the City of St. Catharines, logo and department. Also the by-law and its official designation are quoted. It opens with these words, “You are in violation of City of St. Catharines By-Law No. 2008-315...” The Webster's Dictionary has this to say on the word 'violation' - “infringement or breach, as of a law.” This ticket does not advise of the “existence” of a by-law, heck it is rather clear and straight forward. Detective Harris calls this “merely a generic notice...” Webster's Dictionary on the word 'generic' - “referring to a whole kind, class or group, inclusive or general (2)without a brand name (3)without individual character or distinctive characteristics.” A question for the detective, what makes a parking fine individual or of distinctive character? Your car's license plate number and location! Otherwise each one in that book is merely a “generic notice.”

Now Detective Harris let's look at City of St. Catharines By-Law No. 2008-315. Pop down from the first page to the third “AND WHEREAS,” can you see that one? I'll quote now, “section 425 of the Municipal Act, establishes that any person who contravenes a by-law of the municipality is guilty of an offence.” Let's go back to Webster's shall we for the word 'contravene' - “to go against, oppose, conflict with; violate.” There it is again, 'violate' or as in the ticket you called only a “generic notice” violation. Enough yet? Look at the actual page from the Municipal Act, page 282 which has Section 425 referred to in the actual By-Law No. 2008-315. Under this heading ENFORCEMENT, sub-heading: 'Authority to create offences' 425(1) A municipality may pass by-laws providing that a person who contravenes a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act is guilty of an offence.” There is that word again Detective Harris, 'contravenes'. Shall we continue now to the last page of the actual by-law 2008-315 now? I quote point #8: “Any person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to any penalty provided for in the Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.33, as amended.” The best part and the juiciest Detective Harris is at the bottom of the third and final page of the by-law 2008-315. Look at who signed it? Mayor Brian McMullan signed the by-law on the 15^th of December 2008!!! (Side issue but it makes me think of Mayor McMullan and his financial statements that he signed for his campaign but didn't know of the appearance of illegal contributions).

This was a by-law signed by Mayor Brian McMullan as head of council. Back to the Municipal Act again this time to PART VI Practices and Procedures, Section 225 Role of head of council. Do you see anywhere here Detective Harris authority granted the head of council/mayor to interfere with, forgive or in any form fix a by-law fine? I can give you a copy of the Municipal Act, all 310 pages and ask you to find a clause where there is authority granted a councillor or head of council/mayor to interfere in any way with a lawful by-law fine. No such section, sub-section or clause exists.

Back to the by-law signed by Mayor Brian McMullan on December 15^th 2008 By-Law no: 2008-315. Remember the point I raised, specifically #8 referring to the Provincial Offences Act? Here are copies of relevant sections of that Act as referred to in the by-law signed by Mayor Brian McMullan. Section 3 deals with Certificate of offence and offence notice, it's a great read in fact. Then Section 11.1 Error by municipality . Now Detective Harris this particularly is relevant to the whole issue of a mayor's authority. Can you read this one out loud maybe to yourself? Pop down to Subsection 11.2 and 11.3, good stuff right?  How about NRP Constable Donovan  and his advise on how to handle a by-law fine when you disagree with it.  After all it is the law! Mayor Brian McMullan signed By-Law No.2008-315 into life it was discussed at council, so Councillor Jennie Stevens was fully aware. There are no provisions in the Municipal Act for Mayor Brian McMullan to do as he pleases. The By-Law notice of infringement, or certificate of offence (as referred to in the Provincial Offences Act) states in clear English, “you are in violation of City of St. Catharines By-Law No. 2008-315” Nowhere does it say that this is only to make you aware of the existence of a by-law! You as detectives, not uniformed police officers are obliged to investigate all facts and information before making any decisions. You Detective Harris did not! WHY?

Mayorgate never at any stage made wild or stupid allegations of broad corruption at City Hall. David D'Intino did this without fact or evidence, he also claimed computer hacking. Niagara Regional Police had jurisdiction to investigate the merit of that allegation only, why did you then go to Mark Leeson? Neither he nor I had anything to do with any allegations of hackers. Mayor Brian McMullan overstepped his authority and interfered with a lawful by-law fine. A recorded answering machine message by Councillor Jennie Stevens confirmed this even confirming in actual words the mayor had done so. Breach of the Municipal Act is not the jurisdiction of the NRP. The incident report has no listed complainant, why? Detective Harris held the certificate/notice/fine in his hands and ignored the words on that certificate. The invoice was simply the assessed value of the fine. Did Detective Harris look at the By-Law No. 2008-315 signed by Mayor Brian McMullan? Did Detective Harris look at the Municipal Act and relevant sections? Did Detective Harris bother to look at the Provincial Offences Act and its relevant sections? No, Detective Harris did none of that, but did say no fine existed. Detective Harris did call it a “generic notice” and made conclusions based on what?

On October 26^th 2010 as quoted from the front page of The Standard by Marlene Bergsma: “the allegations of corruption levelled by D'Intino and Davidoff “weren't true” he said. A subsequent investigation by the Niagara Regional Police reached the same conclusion.” David D'Intino who made his baseless allegations then said, and again I quote Marlene Bergsma of The Standard: “D'Intino, who has denied being the author of the scandalous e-mail with his signature that alleged corruption and criminal activity, said McMullan should be glad the allegations raised by the e-mail were investigated by police.” What were D'Intino's motivations? He had no facts, no evidence, he had nothing. Yet he made broad and empty allegations.

Mayorgate has made it clear from the first words posted that full evidence has been provided and made public. Marlene Bergsma intentionally lied on October 14^th 2010 about the whole 'ticket fixing' issue. On October 22^nd 2010 Peter Downs intentionally lied and repeated the same lie as Marlene Bergsma. This did not work! Officers of the Niagara Regional Police Service lied on incident reports – all the evidence here on Mayorgate. Now Detective Harris who did not do detective work, what he did I don't know how to classify. All the information and documentation is here now, any more desire to dismiss the facts.

I have said to you Mayor Brian McMullan that I am happy to do the open and public dance in court with you. I have told Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP the same. When you Mayor Brian McMullan threatened me on the phone on October 22^nd 2010, rather convenient that it was the same day Peter Downs lied in The Standard, with your Toronto lawyers I told you then to go ahead. Your words as quoted by Marlene Bergsma on October 26^th 2010: “At the end of the day, people knew it was not true and I think people were embarrassed by it... That's not what St. Catharines is about.” Well let's make all of this public Mayor McMullan, you threatened me let's do it - but not like before the election Mayor McMullan. All of the facts and nothing but the facts. Everything is here on the pages of Mayorgate, the ticket and its fixing as confirmed by the voice of Councillor Jennie Stevens. The lie by Marlene Bergsma of The Standard. The lie by Peter Downs of The Standard. Niagara Regional Police officers lie on official police incident reports. The incredible detection work of Detective Harris. The illegal campaign funds and the intentional omission from any audit. Finally the treat by you using Christopher J. Bittle of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch. You Mayor Brian McMullan breached the Municipal Act, the Municipal Elections Act and your Oath of Office. Mayorgate never made wild accusations or allegations without evidence and fact, that was only David D'Intino.

I WILL WALK DOWN THE ROAD OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITH YOU

MAYOR BRIAN MCMULLAN, THE ONLY THING I AGREE ON IS

“THAT'S NOT WHAT ST. CATHARINES IS ABOUT.”

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com