Multi-billionaires and their Mind-blowing Hypocrisy

It is somewhat amusing and disheartening to realize the super-rich such as; Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Larry Fink frequently preach to us earthlings about “climate change” and the path to net-zero.  They do this as they fly off in private jets to Davros to attend the WEF (World Economic Forum) annual event or to Glasgow for COP26 thereby creating tons of emissions.

Both Gates and Bezos however, tell those who ask, that they buy “carbon offsets” to eliminate their carbon footprint.  Gates reported he spends US$5 million annually on those offsets.  To put that in perspective Gates is reputedly worth $137 billion so $5 million represents 0.000036% of his net worth or to us in the real world, the purchasing of a “timmies” coffee for a friend!

Bezos (until very recently the richest man in the world) reputedly also buys those carbon offsets but hasn’t disclosed how much he spends annually.  Bezos did announce in February 2020 he would launch a US $10 billion fund (slightly less than 5% of his reported net worth) titled the “Bezos Earth Fund“ to fight “climate change”.  Pretty sure Bezos is totally delighted with the lock-downs imposed on much of the developed world due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Amazon; which he founded, has benefited tremendously as they import goods from developing countries like China, India, etc. and deliver them to your front door by truck.  Now try, as hard as you possibly can to determine how Amazon can become “carbon neutral” by 2040.  Oh, yes, Bezos has pledgedto get the company carbon-neutral by 2040, 100% renewable energy by 2030, and 100,000 electric delivery vehicles by 2030.“ 

Now if you want to watch how Larry Fink and Bill Gates speak with each other on the “Path to Net Zero” they jointly participated in a short YouTube video posted April 23, 2021.  Fink opens by saying “this will not be an easy task” and goes on to state “every hydro-carbon company in the United States is now focused on this” and suggests “it’s because of Bill and other people”!  Fink’s reputed net worth is somewhere around US$1 billion so it pales when compared to Gates or Bezos. As the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management company with almost US $9.5 trillion (approximately 11% of Global GDP) of assets, however, Fink is a huge influence on that “Path”!  Fink annually sends a letter to the world’s 200 largest company’s CEOs and his last one (issued in early 2021) had much to say about “climate change” including this unambiguous sentence: “No issue ranks higher than climate change on our clients’ lists of priorities.“  His letter goes on saying;  “From January through November 2020, investors in mutual funds and ETFs invested $288 billion globally in sustainable assets, a 96% increase over the whole of 2019.“  This years letter will be interesting to see how those assets performed in light of the energy crisis in European and Asian countries which affected share prices of renewable energy companies in a negative fashion as the wind stopped blowing and Russia was unable to deliver fossil fuels during their absence. 

Based on more recent news it appears Fink may have had an awakening as an article from just over a month ago quoted him saying: it’s a “bad answerfor investors to abandon oil and gas, and it won’t help solve climate change.“ As if to support the latter view from Fink and to contradict his above noted chat with Gates and the “path to net-zero” it’s interesting to discover a BlackRock-led group recently won a $15.5 billion bid for a Saudi gas pipeline.  One should assume a gas pipeline will indeed by used to transport “fossil fuels” which intimates BlackRock and Fink understand the importance of fossil fuels to many of the companies they have investments in!

Could Fink’s somewhat mild “about-face” trigger politicians to also understand the importance of fossil fuels in a world dependent on them for 80% of our energy needs.  Let’s all hope so in an effort to end the hypocrisy that seems intent on driving people around the world into energy poverty except for those who can afford to purchase those “carbon offsets”.

Marc Patrone podcast: COP26 attendees, PM Trudeau’s commitments, oil sands emissions, etc.

I was on the Marc Patrone show on SAUGA 960 AM today (November 23, 2021) starting at 1:26:35 of the podcast. We covered a lot of ground about COP26 and what the approximately 39,000 attendees accomplished (sarcasm intended) and a wide degree of other related topics including emissions, inflation, etc. You can listen to our conversation starting at 1:26:35 of the Marc Patrone podcast here:

Wow, Quite the Party at Glasgow with 39,509 registered for COP 26

Recently, a friend and ardent advocate for the truth about “climate change” sent me the link to the Provisional list of registered participants (PLOP) to the COP26 festivities just ended in Glasgow. While most of the Provincial Governments sent participants to COP26, Quebec stands out with over 20 attendees whereas Ontario sent only 4. The provincial number of attendees however pales compared to those attending from the Federal Liberal government which includes Trudeau’s Lead Speechwriter as well as his Official Photographer! 

It is worth noting from the below chart (posted on the 1616 page PDF file of attendees at COP26) the number of (NGO) “Non-governmental organizations” (1,823) who attended the conference with 14,033 participants. Many of those NGO are “charities”.   Now, try to imagine the millions of dollars they spent and why this should be considered a charitable activity?

One assumes the “charitable attendees” were not included in media reports stating: “Canada sent 277 delegates and 17 press aides along for the ride. That’s a lot of emissions – and a lot of taxpayer dollars“.  Despite the foregoing, in a search of PLOP many Canadian registered eco-warrior charities did send lots of delegates. The PLOP listing attendees frequently fails to indicate the country associated with individual names but in doing the “ctrl/f” search a number of Canadian charities, etc. are identifiable! 

To wit:

Those eco-charities with a few identifiable attendees from Canada included: Environmental Defence, WWF, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation and a new charity established by none other than Bruce Lourie, called; “The Transition Accelerator” (TA) where he is Chairman of the Board! The TA’s aim is, “to support Canada’s transition to a net zero future while solving societal challenges“.  Based on their CRA financial filings they have not had to issue a “tax receipt” since their formation as their revenue ($867K) came from other “registered charities” such as the “Ivey Foundation” where Lourie sits as President.

The Ivey Foundation has also handed out grants to Environmental Defence where he spent time as Board Chair and built his relationship with Rick Smith when they coauthored a book. Smith was also an attendee at COP26 but more on him below! 

Another attendee of COP26 was IISD (International Institute of Sustainable Development), a Winnipeg based charity which also received funding from the Ivey Foundation.  The big money for IISD however comes from the UN, the Canadian Federal government and some from the provinces or province of Manitoba.  Total tax receipted funds were a miserly $53,617. (0.2% of gross revenue or enough to cover about 20% of their highest paid employee’s income) out of total revenue of $25.6 million based on their most recent filing with the CRA. IISD appear to have sent at least 12 people to COP26 and will, presumably, claim all their expenses as a “charitable activity”!

The other Canadian entity I was able to identify is a “not-for-profit” named Climate Action Network (CAN-Rac)* who sent at least 30 individuals to COP26. CAN-Rac are a coalition of over 100 organizations which includes Environmental Defence, Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation.  CAN-Rac has been known to spin untruths as pointed out in an article yours truly penned over a year ago.

Now, let’s return to Rick Smith who was an attendee of COP26 as head honcho of the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), along with one other CICC officer.  CICC is the institution created by Catherine McKenna when she held the Ministerial post of Environment and Climate Change and handed out $20 million of our tax dollars to create it.  Presumably Smith is not only happy with his presidential position but also pleased to have reconnected with Bruce Lourie who is one of the many members of the Board of Directors.

 As is obvious, Canada once again had the highest number of attendees at COP26 with 277 attendees! If one does the simple math of dividing the Total Party attendees by the number of countries the average is approximately 110 per country.  Canadian attendees were two- and one-half times that average which suggests the Canadian contingent emitted 250% more CO2 per attendee than any other country in attendance!.

Sure, doesn’t appear our Trudeau led Government are practicing what they preach to us minions!

It appears to be an unmitigated “PLOP”!

*CAN-Rac also had a former Board member in attendance in the form of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault.

ESG appears to be the acronym for Economic Spurious Gibberish

The term “environmental social and governance” (ESG) appears to be a concept developed by Ivo Knoepfel of the University of Zurich via his paper “Who Cares Wins”. The paper led those who claim mankind is responsible for “climate change” to advocate the use of ESG terminology to further their “net-zero” by 2050 target! Interestingly, a recent referendum held in Switzerland related to the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 was rejected by Swiss voters so their politicians will have to back away from their signature to the “Paris Agreement”.

The hypocrisy of those recognized as the “super rich” or the “elites” of the world pushing the “net-zero” emissions by 2050 and the need to audit ESG commitment(s) by all corporations is mind-blowing!

The foregoing was recently highlighted by the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock and one of Canada’s largest, namely Brookfield

An article in the FP highlighted their hypocrisy, with the headline: “Brookfield, BlackRock bids for Saudi Aramco pipeline underscore an ESG dilemma”. Both of these institutions have pushed the “climate change” agenda and the focus to reach net-zero, so one wonders; why are they competitively bidding to acquire a gas pipeline and how would it allow them to achieve their purported end goal?

To reiterate the latter point it is noteworthy to be aware that Larry Fink, founder of BlackRock in his annual letter to CEO’s in 2021 stated:  “we believe all companies – including BlackRock – must begin to address the transition to net zero today. We are taking a number of steps to help investors prepare their portfolios for a net zero world, including capturing opportunities created by the net zero transition.

Likewise if one looks at the claim made by Mark Carney (Vice Chair of Brookfield), after his appointment, he went on to say publicly: “The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business,” he said, and thus “all the avoided emissions that come with that offset existing investments in entities that emit carbon.“  The media pushback on his remark forced him to admit it was a false claim.

Both Larry Fink and Mark Carney are members of the Board of Trustees of the WEF (World Economic Forum) and Klaus Schaub, WEF’s founder, states you won’t be allowed to join the WEF unless the company or organization you represent have committed to achieve net-zero by 2050 or sooner!

Past and Present Brookfield Actions

Brookfield’s history goes back to 1899 but we will look at only a few of their activities in the past decade. Let’s start with their purchase in October 2012 of Enwave Energy for C$480 million owned jointly by the City of Toronto and OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System) at that time.  Enwave was, and still is, a district energy system provider, meaning they don’t generate greenhouse gases as the energy is geothermal (includes lake water) to heat and cool buildings.

Fast forward by almost 9 years to February 2021 and Brookfield announced they sold Enwave for US$4.1 billion (C$5.1 billion) to Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Australian firm IFM Investors (each owning 50%) and presumably celebrated a very nice return on their original investment.  What is sadly amusing about this buying and selling occurrence is that one Government of Ontario pension plan (OMERS) sold their position back in 2012 for a fraction of what another Government of Ontario pension plan (OTPP) purchased it for in 2021. 

To make taxpayers more upset, back in 2019 former Minister of the Environment, Catherine McKenna handed Enwave $10 million of our tax dollars saying this partnership will help create jobs and help tackle climate change in asmarter way.“   

Just days ago, the (CIB) Canada Infrastructure Bank, (created in June 2017 to provide up to $35 billion to support infrastructure projects) issued a press release stating:  “The CIB is committing $600 million to the project which allows Enwave to accelerate and scale the build-out of its district energy systems.” The press release is vague in that it doesn’t indicate if it is an investment or a loan agreement. Either event will simply see tax dollars flying out the door while the Government increases our deficit and borrows the money they claim is for the good of the planet. The CIB now falls under the purview of Minister Dominic LeBlanc who in the past was singled out by Canada’s ethics commissioner when he “broke conflict of interest rules when he awarded a lucrative Arctic surf clam license to a company linked to his wife’s cousin.“

So, one should wonder, what did Brookfield do with that US$4.1 billion to assist them in their push to get to net-zero their Vice Chair Mark Carney, surely emphasized?  We don’t really know, but:

Brookfield wound up competing with Pembina Pipeline Co. for the purchase of Inter Pipeline and they won with a hostile takeover offer by outbidding Pembina with an accepted offer of C$8.6 billion.  One should surely wonder how that will assist Brookfield in getting to the “net-zero” target and how it fits with their 63 page ESG report for 2020?

The CEO’s letter within Brookfield’s ESG report contained the following:

Within our ESG initiatives, we are directing our efforts to the transition to a net zero carbon economy. This transition will affect virtually every business in every country, and we are fully committed to doing our part to decarbonize. In March 2021, we took an important step as part of our commitment to achieving net zero throughout our business: becoming a signatory to the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative.”

One should wonder with the foregoing ESG initiative why would Brookfield purchase a pipeline and pursue another one in the middle east in competition with BlackRock (another NZAM member)?

From all appearances ESG, ie: “Economic Spurious Gibberish“ is the acronym for the heading in this article and has nothing to do with “environmental social and governance” they pretend it does!

Quebec has joined the BOGA(man), Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance

When first viewed, the word “BOGA” created mind thoughts of things like, boogieman, bafflegab, the Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy, etc. etc.  Looking further clarified it as the acronym for a COP 26 creation known as “Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance”!

The article where “BOGA” appeared was dated November 11, 2021 and headlined as; “COP26: Denmark and Costa Rica launch ambitious alliance to phase out oil and gas”. The article went on to state: “Led by Costa Rica and Denmark, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) saw six full members, France, Greenland, Ireland, Quebec, Sweden and Wales, announced at COP26 today“ and further stated; ‘Each member will commit to ending new licensing rounds for oil and gas exploration and production. They must also set an end date for oil and gas production and exploration that is aligned with Paris Agreement objectives.“  Reading further it disclosed California and New Zealand also joined the alliance as associate members and Italy became a ‘Friend of BOGA’.

Looking at the two founding countries of BOGA is interesting:

Costa Rica generates 72% of its electricity from hydro, almost 15% from geothermal sources, 12% from wind and a small amount from biomass and solar.  Costa Rica consumes just under 10 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity annually. (NB: For context, Toronto Hydro delivered almost 24 TWh in 2020)

Denmark’s electricity consumption in 2019 was 33.7 TWh.  Generation from fossil fuels and waste was 20% (7.4 TWh), wind was 57% (19.2 TWh), solar 3% (1 TWh) and the balance came from net imports. Up until very recently Denmark held the # 1 spot as the EU country with the highest electricity rates but they recently were relegated to 2nd place by Germany.

The other issue with Denmark is related to their purpose in creating BOGA! They are home to the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, the fourth largest employer in Demark with 29,000 employees. Denmark is also home to the world’s top developer of offshore wind farms, Orsted. It seems obvious why Denmark played the major role in creating BOGA as those two companies will reap the benefits going forward and the Government will reap the rewards from any jobs created as Denmark also has the highest personal tax rates in the EU.

As if to exacerbate the BOGA affect, Denmark’s Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities Dan Jorgensen, in early September announced they were looking for partners in respect to their plan to construct a $34 billion manmade “energy island” and hundreds of “offshore industrial wind turbines” to help the country achieve “climate neutrality by 2050.”  Missing from the equation and braggadocio of Denmark’s Jorgensen, was how those “hundreds of offshore industrial wind turbines”; kill birds and bats, affect marine life or how they will be recycled when they reach their end-of-life.   As demonstrated by countries around the world many parts of those IWT along with solar panels will simply be buried as has continually happened with those fiberglass turbine blades.

Costa Rica, the other co-founder of BOGA, as noted above, appears to generate 100% of its electricity from renewable sources and one can easily find articles supporting that fact.  Funnily enough, despite those commendations about renewable electricity for Costa Rica their main import is “refined petroleum” which in 2019 was $1.52 billion.  An article in the Guardian from 2017 headlined: “All that glitters is not green: Costa Rica’s renewables conceal dependence on oil” went into considerable detail including the fact “renewables make up less than a quarter of the nation’s total energy use.”  The article went on to note an “explosive growth in private vehicles is causing more than just pollution. Traffic in the capital, San José, has become almost unmanageable, with the city earning the worst ranking for congestion in Latin America, according to a study by the navigation app Waze.”

The foregoing suggests things are not as they appear despite the “back slapping” at COP26 associated with powering the electricity sector with industrial wind turbines, solar or hydro. Those few locations around the world fortunate enough to have been graced with an abundance of hydro power by mother nature like Costa Rica and the province of Quebec should not be critics of those less fortunate.

Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable to claim you are going all out to push the “renewable energy” button while you import oil to refine it, as Quebec does, or import it in a refined state as Costa Rica does, or in the case of Denmark, extract it for sale to others.

The obvious hypocrisy of the whole UN COP 26 climate conference is easily exposed from just this small segment of what those 30,000 Glasgow attendees developed over the two-week event.

Dialing the temperature up or down is beyond the control of humankind except to a very small extent as many scientists (not invited to attend COP 26) have stressed in various peer reviewed studies over many years. 

We should all be afraid of the UNIPCC “BOGA man”!

Maybe Alberta’s Premier should hold off asking for Constitutional Changes to the Equalization Formula

The past week was an interesting one here in Canada as a couple of major provincial announcements from the east (Quebec) and west (Alberta) suggest what appears to be a major conflict on energy sources and the flow of tax dollars related to the “Equalization Formula”.

On the latter; in 2019 Alberta contributed $22 billion more in tax revenue than they got back from the Federal government according to a Fraser Institute review whereas Quebec in that year, received $13.2 billion or 66.9% of total equalization payments.

Those equalization payments have seemingly annoyed Albertans as clearly demonstrated via a recent referendum resulting in almost 62% voting to revise the “constitution”. The principal reason expressed by Alberta Premier Kenney why Albertans supported the referendum was; “to demand a repeal of “discriminatory” environmental laws that hurt Alberta’s energy sector.”  Needless to say, the push to eliminate fossil fuel generation has impacted the Alberta economy and forecasted to do more harm.

While many of those “environmental laws” were imposed by the Trudeau led Liberal minority government another recent “related event” presumably played a role!  That event was how Quebec Premier Legault suddenly announced: “The government of Quebec has taken a decision to renounce, definitively, extraction of hydrocarbons in its territory,” and labelled it as “a recipe for prosperity in an emerging age of international consensus on preventing drastic climate change by cutting fossil fuel carbon emissions blamed for global warming.” Needless to say Premier Legault will attend COP-26 where he presumably hopes to be honoured for Quebec being blessed with hydro dams. Legault noted those dams “enable us to attract investment because, in future, enterprises that want to produce goods without emitting greenhouse gases are going to find in Quebec an incomparable land of opportunity”.

As is to solidify Premier Legault’s anticipated blessing at COP 26 it is interesting to note Quebec accounts for 46% of all EV (electric vehicles) registrations in Canada perhaps related to their generous grants and cheap electricity rates. 

It seems ironic Albertans contribute their tax dollars to allow Quebecers to receive an $8K grant from Quebec (coupled with one for $5K from the Feds) to purchase a Tesla EV!

Does Premier Legault see lithium demand fueling Quebec prosperity?

The foregoing question is one that could be weighing on Premier Legault’s mind and why he dismissed exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) in Quebec even though they may well have untapped and significant resources particularly related to natural gas.  As it turns out Quebec also has lithium reserves which are currently in high demand and recently forecast to reach as much as US$30,000 per metric ton in the spot market. Couple those lithium reserves with another forecast suggesting its demand will grow at average annual rates of 30%* and one can see why Premier Legault is excited about the net-zero push.

As it to top things off back in late March of this year the US Department of Commerce “held a closed-door virtual meeting with miners and battery manufacturers to discuss ways to boost Canadian production of EV materials, according to documents seen by Reuters.”  The article describing the meeting noted a month before; President Biden and PM Trudeau committed to building an EV supply chain between the two countries. Interestingly two US mining companies (Livent and Pallinghurst) have invested in Canada jointly purchasing “the Nemaska lithium project in Quebec, in what will be North America’s largest lithium mine.” Livent was one of the 30 or so companies present at the ”closed-door” virtual meeting as was Tesla.  Another interesting article from July 2020 noted a California based company; KoBold Metals, “financed by well-known billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Ray Dalio, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson and Gates” has been attracted to Quebec.  KoBold’s principal focus is on finding “cobalt” and nickel deposits (secondary) both used in the manufacturing of those EV batteries.  They have acquired “rights to an area (in Quebec) of about 1,000 square kilometres (386 sq. miles), where it plans to begin collecting geophysical data before the end of the year.” It should be apparent why many of the “billionaires” behind KoBold push the “net-zero” concept. It is to simply make themselves even richer at a huge cost to the rest of us commoners. 

From all appearances Premier Legault sees the push for net-zero and elimination of fossil fuel use as a gamechanger for Quebec by attracting investors seeking minerals for EV.  Those incoming investments will (he believes) create well-paying jobs and rocket Quebec’s economy up to surpass Alberta’s on a per capita basis. His wish perhaps, is to see Quebec vault to become Canada’s richest province.  Should that happen because of the demise of fossil fuels Quebec may find itself as “The Province” doling out those “equalization” monies.

Maybe Premier Kenny should hold off before insisting on revisions to the equalization formula, as in the future, when the world has achieved the goal of the eco-warriors and our demented politicians, Quebec will be rife with cash and the rest of Canada will be the beneficiaries. 

We will all surely need it, should the foregoing happen, as we will be struggling to survive without reliable power to keep us warm in our cold winters and many of us will, by then, be living in poverty.

*BYD a major Chinese battery manufacturing company recently announced they will raise battery prices by 20% due to raw material costs.

The Canadian Institute of Climate Choices want us to Sink not Swim

Surely it was purely coincidental the CICC (Canadian Institute of Climate Choices) released their report titled: “Global climate policy acceleration means sink-or-swim decade for Canada’s economy” on the same, pre-announced day, Commissioner Steve Allan’s Alberta Inquiry into anti-Alberta energy campaigns was released!  Or was it?

Both of the foregoing reports were released on October 21, 2021 and while the Allan report was about 700 pages the CICC report was a meagre 122 pages.  The latter however, was full of disaster warnings about “climate change” and suggested “fossil fuels” were being replaced with wind and solar.  The CICC report went so far as to compliment China (the world’s largest emitter of CO 2) for being “an early leader in electric vehicles and solar technology”. The Allan Report (657 pages) was oblique in accusing Canadian environmental groups of using foreign funding to curtail and end fossil fuel generation. The foregoing  was concluded despite an independent report from Deloitte’s noting; “Total foreign funding, therefore, of “Canadian-based environmental initiatives” was $1.28 billion for the period 2003-2019.”  Apparently “climate change” activism is not a sin or a crime despite its probable outcome to create energy poverty.

Looking specifically at the CICC, “sink or swim” report one should note it is truly meant to scare the reader by suggesting if Canada doesn’t move to “net-zero” emissions we are in big trouble.  Specifically, their report states: “Around 2,000 workers have been affected by coal power closures, whereas over 880,000 people work in the transition-vulnerable sectors identified in Figure 18.” Figure 18 (page 59), discloses those workers who are reputedly at risk of losing their employment are in a variety of jobs including those in many of the areas at which Canada excels such as: oil and gas extraction, emissions intensive manufacturing, mining and quarrying, transportation equipment manufacturing and support for mining and oil and gas extraction! Needless to say, the forecast of those 880,000 job losses caught the media’s attention.

The CICC report in “picture terms” lays out the potential impacts in a chart (Figure 1) on page 6 by using a forecast from Central Bankslabelled as,“NGFS” (Network for Greening the Financial System).  The NGFS was launched by 8 founding central banks, under the leadership of Banque de France‘s governor François Villeroy de Galhau, the Dutch Central Bank‘s Frank Elderson and the Bank of England‘s former governor Mark Carney.” It should come as no surprise Mark Carney was actively involved in its formation. Their membership now contains 95 central banks The data, needless to say, is scary as without adoption of “net-zero” by 2050, in non-adapting countries, GDP is projected to fall by over 10% from current levels. CICC commissioned Planetrics (a Mckinsey & Company subsidiary), an international climate-risk analytics company, to stress test Canadian publicly traded companies and companies with Canadian operations. Apparently CICC with close to 100 reputed taxpayer supported “experts” was unable to perform that exercise.

At this point it is important to note the CICC was a creation of the now retired Catherine McKenna, former Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The CICC was created with $20 million taxpayer dollars and loaded its staff, Board of Directors, expert panels and advisory council with a myriad of eco-warriors mainly dependent on government largesse. Those eco-warriors seem intent on decimating Canada’s economic wellbeing via their actions in support of our current government and ending our dependence on fossil fuels.

Needless to say, we should believe the release of the CICC report to coincide with the Allan report was meant to offset its release.  The damning information in the Allan report only confirmed how Canadian environmental groups accepted foreign contributions to push the narrative—Canadian production of coal, oil and gas must cease!  One need look no further, then note, the current President of CICC is Rick Smith who spent 9 years at Environmental Defence pushing the “climate change” agenda. Failing that belief, perhaps the word came down from Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or his Chief of Staff, Marlo Raynolds whose past relationship with Rick Smith demonstrates serious collaboration between Pembina and Environmental Defence via the Strathmere Group.  

Both Raynolds and Smith signed the Strathmere Goup’s “Declarations” jointly and one of those clearly was:

Declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels from sources such as tar sands, oil shale and liquid coal.”

We should be confident the release of the CICC’s “sink or swim” report on the same day as the Steven Allan Inquiry was planned to ensure the main stream media focused on the forecasted loss of those 880,000 jobs that will occur should Canada not commit to “net-zero”!

Collaboration between CICC and those in political power clearly reflects their intentions to harm Canada’s economy!

Strathmere Group Declarations # 5 and # 6

Declaration target # 5 

Declare a moratorium on industrial fishing and development in the Arctic Ocean until there is a comprehensive scientific analysis incorporating the newest information on climate change impacts and until there is a system for integrated, precautionary ecosystem-based management of industrial activities.

AND

Declaration target # 6

Work cooperatively with all Arctic countries and Peoples to curb all sources of pollution of the Arctic, including from land-based sources

Both of those “Declarations” committed to by the “Strathmere Group” and their 21 US cousins back in June 2009 were focused on the Arctic; ocean and  lands so, we will look at them together.

Back in June 2019 when Jonathon Wilkinson was Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard he tabled Bill C-68 declared as the “modernized Fisheries Act and it passed Parliament June 20, 2019.  Needless to say, he was pleased and made the statement: “Our government is working hard to protect fish and fish habitat from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and the modernized Fisheries Act will do just that.” Wilkinson was also quoted stating: “It raises the bar in making sure that decision-making is based on science and evidence.”

Co-incidentally Bill C-48 sponsored by Marc Garneau, MP for Westmount Quebec and, Minister of Transport, also received 3rd reading the following day on June 21, 2019. The latter Bill was an Act regulating vessels transporting crude oil from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast. The Bill killed any hopes of either the Northern Gateway Pipeline or the “Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, which would run from the oil sands across Indigenous lands to BC’s northern coast, along with Indigenous peoples’ hopes for a better economic future” from proceeding!

It seems odd while these two Liberal Ministers are so concerned about the fossil fuel sector and its potential damage to the eco-system, they basically ignored the continued dumping of raw sewage by cities along the St. Lawrence River like LongueuilMontreal and Quebec City!  Collectively those three cities reported dumping about 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River! 

Apparently marine life in the St. Lawrence River is not important but “potential” oil spills off of BC’s north coast will protect marine life as will no commercial fishing in part of the Arctic Ocean!

Many of us recall the happenstance related to the Newfoundland cod stock collapse and it is interesting to know one of the causes was “foreign overfishing”!  An extensive report from 2002 noted: “Canadian media and government public relations people often cite foreign overfishing as the primary cause of the “fishing out” of the north Atlantic cod stocks. Many nations took fish off the coast of Newfoundland, including Spain, Portugal, other countries of the European Community (EC), the former Soviet Union, Japan, and Korea.”  The report also noted: “There can be little doubt that foreign overfishing was a contributing factor in the cod stock collapse, and that the capitalist dynamics that were at work in Canada were all too similar for the foreign vessels and companies. But all of the blame cannot be put there, no matter how easy it is to do.”  Bad management by the Ministry is also cited as a cause in the report reflecting the moratorium placed on them on July 2, 1992 by the Honourable John Crosbie that has never been lifted since being imposed!

From all appearances commercial fishing to any great extent has never occurred in the Arctic Ocean and Bill C-68 will presumably preserve that observation for Canada’s commercial fishing fleet.

Along with the passing of Bill C-68 back on October 3, 2018 a legally binding international agreement was signed by Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States, China, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the European Union and Denmark.  The agreement will reputedly protect the Central Arctic Ocean from “unregulated fishing”. The agreement was reported as becoming law on June 18, 2021 so that particular section of the Arctic Ocean (three million square kilometres) will presumably be regulated.

Should one wonder why China was included it’s not because they fish, commercially, in the Arctic Ocean but perhaps because according to an article penned in August 2020 noted: “Estimates of the total size of China’s global fishing fleet vary widely. By some calculations, China has anywhere from 200,000 to 800,000 fishing boats, accounting for nearly half of the world’s fishing activity.“  The article went on to state: “China is not only the world’s biggest seafood exporter, the country’s population also accounts for more than a third of all fish consumption worldwide.

One should wonder, why would China agree to sign the agreement? 

In response to the foregoing question, one should note Canada has been extremely slow in building infrastructure to support our northern territories so without roads, railways or ports any developments of new mines, etc. are extremely costly so little development has taken place.  Suddenly back on August 13, 2019 Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport announced a project: “$21.5 million to complete preparatory work necessary for the first phase of construction of the Grays Bay Road and Port Project. The proposed 230 kilometre all-season road would be the first road to connect Nunavut to the rest of Canada.“  That particular project, co-incidentally, was seen as the means to cash in on opening of the Arctic which was something China had attempted to accomplish back in 2011 via a Chinese company (MMG Limited) whose principal shareholder was the Chinese government.  At that time MMG backed away as the cost of the roads and port made it too costly! As noted in an article in the Walrus on January 4, 2021, “The vast mineral deposits of zinc and copper near Izok Lake, in the Northwest Territories, lay glittering but ultimately untouchable“ until Garneau’s pledge. Shortly after than pledge by Garneau, Mr. G. Gao, CEO of MMG in a press release said;  “On behalf of MMG, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Canadian government for their support and funding,”.

The Walrus article goes on to note “CHINA’S GROWING INTEREST in the Canadian Arctic, one of the least defended regions on earth, has been a calculated move. In 2013, de­spite not being one of the eight Arctic nations, China gained official observer status at the Arctic Council, an intergov­ernmental forum, and later declared it­self a “near­-Arctic state”—a phrase that seems to ignore the 5,000 kilometres between its northern­most point and the Arc­tic Circle.

It seems ironic Garneau’s Bill C-48 designed to halt Canadian fossil fuel exports was passed just two months earlier before he turned around and catered to Chinese interests. 

It seems apparent the Strathmere Group partially attained their aim for Declaration # 5 but not in its entirety so it is only a “passing grade”.

Based on the foregoing happenings (so well reported by the Walrus), the current Liberal government, by catering to the whims of the CCP looks likely to allow the creation of mining projects for those minerals desired by China. That being the case one should expect, at the least, a modicum of pollution to occur in the Arctic meaning Declaration # 6 will be destined to fall into the Strathmere Groups first fail category.

The Circular Economy will Take “Peoplekind”* Down the Drain

Robert Hornung, CEO of CanREA (Canadian Renewable Energy Association) on July 26, 2021 posted an article on their website titled “Taking Charge” and one of the early claims made in the article was:

A growing number of corporations are prioritizing the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions within their environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies and taking steps to ensure the electricity they use is generated by non-emitting sources, like wind and solar energy.”

The article doesn’t explain the reasons why those corporations are taking those steps but anyone following politics is aware; numerous “developed world” governments are passing acts or regulating emissions that put a price on them.  Those actions raise the cost of what corporations produce and suddenly the products they manufacture are no longer competitive with products produced in countries not imposing costs. Those countries like, Brazil, Russia China, India, South Africa, (BRICS country members) etc. will either produce similar products with lower prices or will attract those corporations. That means corporations will move to those locations and shut their manufacturing plants in countries like Canada who have imposed both a “carbon tax” rising to $170/ton by 2030 and another tax referenced as the “clean fuel standard”.  We should be confident those imposed costs will mean less jobs in Canada and other developed countries.

The CanREA article pushing wind, solar and battery storage, appeared before Ontario experienced a number of hot days in August which could have resulted in rolling blackouts or brownouts had we not had sufficient gas plants at the ready. The 5,500 MW (approximately) of wind capacity in Ontario went for a holiday.  Likewise the UK also recently experienced the failure of their 24.1 GW capacity of industrial wind turbines and were even forced to fire up one of their coal plants to avoid blackouts joining up with gas plants that provided 46.5% of their energy needs.

 Looking at the World Bank’s “Carbon Price Dashboard” Canada stands out as a country that has implemented emissions pricing well beyond other countries around the world. One should wonder “why” when our emissions are a miniscule 1.6% of global emissions and less than our percentage of global GDP (gross domestic product) of 1.9%.

Also worth mentioning is that China, a BRICS member, has basically stated they “won’t be bullied into going green” at the upcoming COP 26 conference in Glasgow. In 2018 the five BRICS countries accounted for 42% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with China the number one emitter globally at 28% but they produced only 17.4% of global GDP in 2020.  Based on the foregoing Canada is almost twice as emissions efficient as China but apparently the eco-warriors, politicians and those multi-billionaires like Bloomberg, Fink, Gates and the former Governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, in conjunction with the WEF (World Economic Forum) want more! The latter fully support the concept of mankind causing global warming and the reputed upcoming “climate pandemic” in the hopes of becoming wealthier!  The rest of us, based on what the WEF tell us will succumb to their forecast of; “by 2030 You’ll own nothing And you’ll be happy”! One should assume the Board of Trustees of the WEF including luminaries like Al Gore, Mark Carney, Laurence Fink and our current Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland and others including Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, etc. will be the ones owning everything.

The WEF supports the “circular economy” which they claim; “promotes the elimination of waste and the continual safe use of natural resources, offers an alternative that can yield up to $4.5 trillion in economic benefits to 2030.”

Hmm, one should surmise, based on their short video telling us all how we will own nothing but be happy, whose pockets will be lined with the $4.5 trillion they claim will come from the forecasted “economic benefits.”

The other question is where will that $4,5 trillion come from?  We should suspect much of it will be created by the cost of purported “low-carbon energy”.

The International Energy Agency estimates that global investment in low-carbon energy will have to increase 2½ times by 2030 from its current level of about $620 billion a year to meet targets in the Paris climate agreement.”  If one does the quick math on the IEA’s estimate it amounts to about $13 trillion for the next 9 years. One should suspect the $13 trillion will come from the pockets of those who “will own nothing”!

Those investments In low-carbon energy are happening and gaining speed as large pension funds like the CPPI, asset management firms such as  BlackRock, Brookfield, etc. etc. invest our money in renewable energy in increasing ways as the Washington Post reported earlier this year.  

What the foregoing seems to magnify is the elites of the world coupled with the eco-warriors are sold on the “circular economy” and are intent on seeing the rest of us “peoplekind” head “down the drain”!

*A word created by Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Strathmere Group Part 5 (A) the Final Chapter and Declarations 1,2,3,4,5 and 6

Collaboration Amongst the US and Canadian Eco-Warrior Charities

The time has come to have a hard look at the joint “Declaration” and the seven (7) objectives of the 12 Canadian and 21 U.S. “Environmental and Conservation Leadersto determine their success in meeting their objectives when they signed it back on June 2, 2009.  We will examine each of the goals in order of their appearance in the original letter.   Those will be done one at a time and added to this article every few days in order to keep each review down to a two- or three-minute read.

Before reviewing the goals, here is a quick look at the lead-in of the letter.

Eco-Warriors pontificating on North American Ingenuity:

North American ingenuity can protect our deteriorating atmosphere, grow manufacturing jobs in harnessing wind and solar energy, improve our security by reducing our dependence on oil, minimize climate change’s drastic impact on human and natural communities, and protect our fragile natural areas such as the Arctic and the Boreal Forest.”

Ontarians were told by Premier McGuinty and his Energy Minister, the GEA (Green Energy Act) would focus on “harnessing wind and solar energy” and would create 50,000 jobs while only increasing electricity rates 1%.  Coincidently the GEA was introduced in the Legislature February 23, 2009 and received third reading later that year.  We know how that turned out as electricity rates climbed by over 100%!  As the Fraser Institute pointed out: “Alas, those benefits also proved illusory: the government now admits the 50,000 jobs claim was not based on any formal analysis; that most of these green jobs would be temporary, and the estimate didn’t account for the jobs that would be killed by escalating electricity costs under the GEA.”

Now on the issue of reducing our dependence on oil it is worth noting that since the signing of the “Declaration”, Canadian domestic sale of petroleum was 1.66 million barrels per day in 2009 and in 2019 was 1.8 million barrels per day for an increase of 8.4%. 

The two objectives to “grow manufacturing jobs” and “reducing our dependence on oil” fell flat so how did they do on their 7 objectives as posted in: Strathmere Group Part 5 of this series?

Declaration target # 1:

Show bold leadership on the world stage, especially leading up to the Copenhagen climate meeting, and within each country through addressing climate change head-on.

Well recent history disclosed the Copenhagen Summit failed to produce a binding agreement when it occurred in 2009. The conference produced the Copenhagen Accord agreed to by a few of the big players; China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa but the accord was not binding, didn’t set emissions reduction targets so in effect was a failure although the 21 U.S. ENGO no doubt saw it as a win. 

Now if one fast forwards to the Paris Accord occurring shortly after the Trudeau led Liberal Party received their majority in Parliament in late 2015, Canada sent 383 people to the conference.  That was more than the U.S., Australia and the UK together sent! PM Trudeau was amongst the 383 and at the Accord declared: “Canada is back, my good friends”. One should suspect some of those travelling to Paris on the taxpayer’s dime (Gerald Butts was one) were associated with the 12 Canadian ENGO who signed the declaration. No doubt they had spent time since 2009 lobbying various government bureaucrats and politicians since the Harper led government had backed off of any commitments at the Copenhagen Summit. 

Needless to say, the 12 ENGO achieved their first “Declaration” albeit, later than planned!

Declaration target # 2:

Incorporate climate science into policy and permitting decisions affecting natural resource management in order to best ensure that wildlife and natural systems can survive in a warming world.

It is fundamental to ENGO they allude to; a desire to, “Incorporate climate science” in the never-ending diatribe they push in the “reports” and “studies” they churn out to spur politicians to adopt their beliefs. Examining the authors of the reports to seek their credentials on “climate science” is often a futile time-consumer and most reports fail to actually identify “authors”. Two reports caught my eye! The first is titled “Green Stimulus” by unknown authors at the Pembina Institute (founder of the Strathmere Group) dated March 30, 2020 at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. It pushes a “Green Transformation Program” to “decarbonize” the oil and gas sector and hand out money to retrain the workers. The report pushes “renewables” as the answer to our electricity needs and suggests we improve our transmission system to the U.S. as they will reputedly want to buy that renewable energy.  Had the author(s) bothered to research Ontario they would have discovered the generation of electricity from renewables is most often surplus to demand and exported at a cost to Ontarians of almost $2 billion annually. 

The second report was prepared by six ENGO and five are Strathmere Group members including: Ecojustice, CAN/RAC, Equiterre, Environmental Defence and Pembina.  It was issued May 2020 and titled, “A New Canadian Climate Accountability Act”.  As its title implies; a new “Act” should be created to deal with GHG ie; emissions!  The bulk of the contributors to the “report” were “expert” lawyers and nowhere in the report are hints of the costs. They want the legislation to set targets for 2030 and 2050 with five-year reviews aligned with the Paris Accord.  The report mentions “carbon budget” 200 times but provides no estimate of costs.  The only mention of “jobs” in the report suggests they will be created by “adaptation”!  

The proposed “Act” has happened with the introduction and passage of the “Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act”  in the House of Commons by Johnathon Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.  From all appearances the Act presented is almost a carbon copy (pun intended) of the one suggested by those ENGO in the aforementioned “report”! Interestingly a quote from the report stated: “The alternate path — which limits the global average temperature rise to “well below 2°C” – would transform the health of a child born today for the better, all the way through its life.” Wilkinson’s related quote on his ACT starts with how “science” says we must achieve “net-zero emissions” and goes on to say: “This achievement is necessary to ensure our kids and grandkids can live in a world with cleaner air and water and to ensure our businesses maintain and gain a competitive edge by producing the low-carbon products the world wants to buy, well into the future.”

Based on the foregoing it is apparent the Strathmere Group have been successful in the creation of the proposed Act.  The Trudeau governments time in office running the country also saw them pass other acts such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.  Those Acts are also aimed at containing and reducing Canada’s oil and gas sector along with the extraction of minerals in mining operations.

Once again, we should recognize the 12 Strathmere Group ENGO delivered on their second declaration!

Declaration target # 3:

Declare a moratorium on expansion of tar sands development and halt further approval of infrastructure that would lock us into using dirty liquid fuels from sources such as tar sands, oil shale and liquid coal.

As pointed out in “Declaration target # 2”, the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau didn’t pass a full moratorium on expansion of the oil sands (a deviation of “tar” per the Strathmere Group) development, however, what the Liberal Party did was pass two Acts to create a tsunami of difficulties for any company attempting an expansion!  The “Acts” and their outcomes are defined as follows:

Bill C-69 is an Act: “to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.”

Critics of Bill C-69 argued; it would create more red tape in efforts to bring Canadian oil to market and Alberta’s Premier dubbed it the “No More Pipelines Bill.” Several Conservative premiers, provincial energy ministers, senators and MPs warned the legislation would repel energy investors and rob oil-rich regions like Alberta of the ability to benefit from their resources. The results emanating from Bill C-69 as noted by EnergyNow, had the effect of seeing capital expenditures in the oil and gas extraction sector in Canada fall from $76.1 billion in 2014 to $33.3 billion (a drop of 56.2%) in 2019.  StatCan also reported in December 2020 noting: “Following a 52% drop in the second quarter, capital expenditures in the oil and gas extraction industries increased 11% to $4.5 billion in the third quarter. Year-to-date spending totaled $17.1 billion, a 34% decline over the first three quarters of 2019.” Bill C-69 was passed in June 2019. “

The second Act, Bill C-48 received Royal Assent June 21, 2019 and is defined as; “An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast”. 

The Bill C-48 Act appears responsible for a couple of major events including Kinder Morgan’s abrupt exit from Canada at the taxpayer’s expense as they faced many illegal blockades (seemingly allowed by the RCMP, who are federally controlled) and were forced to cease construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline on numerous occasions. The Trudeau Liberals wound up purchasing Kinder Morgan’s Canadian assets for $4.5 billion.  The cost to complete the pipeline expansion has (as of February 2020) increased from $7.4 billion to $12.6 billion meaning taxpayers are stuck with added taxpayer debt of $17.1 billion.

The second event that occurred was related to Enbridge’s plan for the Northern Gateway pipeline which the Trudeau led Liberals halted, prior to passage of Bill C-48!  The Northern Gateway pipeline was on the radar screen of ENGO as they pushed the plan to ban tanker traffic on the northwest Pacific coast. The mandate letter dated November 12, 2015 from Trudeau to the Minister of Transport stated: “Formalize a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s North Coast, working in collaboration with the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop an approach.” 

Needless to say, the WWF, a Strathmere Group member where Gerald Butts previously resided as President and CEO were delighted!  David Miller (former Mayor of Toronto), who succeeded Butts as President, published an article on November 23, 2015 shouting out: “The moratorium is something to celebrate, and puts a major hurdle in front of Enbridge’s plans for the region.”  Miller also went on to state: “It’s now crucial that we push towards the next stage: a legislated ban on all oil tanker traffic in the region.

Bill C-48 followed and even though the Senate’s transport committee voted in May 2019 to recommend the bill not move forward and presented a report to the Senate as a whole that asked them to endorse the recommendation that the bill be defeated”, it passed.

One should surmise the passage of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 were successful at the goal of halting any significant expansion of the “tar sands” so, the Strathmere Group once again can brag about their success in meeting their third “declaration”!

Declaration target # 4:

Strengthen investments in renewable energy and in energy efficiency and conservation through creating new clean energy jobs and increasing prosperity through new technologies.

This “declaration” went on to state: “energy security is best achieved through investment in the cleanest available energy and through ending our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Needless to say, Ontario ratepayers are well aware this particular “declaration” had already started to unfold prior to the signing of the joint letter in Washington on June 2, 2009.  Gerald Butts, one of the signatures on the joint declaration as the CEO of the WWF-Canada (World Wildlife Fund) was instrumental in the creation of the GEGEA (Green Energy and Green Economy Act) in Ontario.  The Act received third reading and royal ascent on May 14, 2009 almost a month before the “joint declaration” was signed. An excellent article by Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post from five years ago noted: “Prior to the 2007 election, Butts was a McGuinty insider. After the election, he became McGuinty’s principal adviser. As one of his biographical notes describes it, Butts “was intimately involved in all of the government’s significant environmental initiatives, from the Greenbelt and Boreal Conservation plan to the coal phase-out and toxic reduction strategy.”

What followed was spelled out in the Ontario Auditor General’s press release of December 2015 disclosing the cost of renewable contracts under the GEGEA was $37 billion to the end of 2014 and would cost another $133 billion up to the end of the contracts. To add fuel to the fire Ontario’s Liberal Party, under Kathleen Wynne, on January 1, 2017 launched their “cap & trade” program joining Quebec and BC.  The foregoing may have occurred because PM Justin Trudeau had announced in early October 2016, he would impose a price on carbon beginning in 2018 if any provinces didn’t have one.  At that time Gerald Butts was his Principal Secretary and viewed as his puppet master.  Again, as we in Ontario know, when the Ford government was elected, he cancelled Wynne’s “cap & trade” program! 

In early 2017 the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change was issued and recommended a carbon tax starting at $10/ton on January 1, 2018 increasing by $10 each year to a maximum of $50 per ton. The Framework only loosely focused on achieving “net-zero” targeting only “new buildings”.  Suddenly on December 11, 2020 with the country in a Covid-19 lockdown Trudeau and his new Environment Minister, Jonathon Wilkinson announced the carbon tax would be expanded to $170 ton to wean us all off of “fossil fuels”. The pretext was it was being done so Canada could meet its Paris Agreement targets.

The impact of raising the tax to that level was spelled out in a Fraser Institute report which noted: “In this study, we present an analysis using a large empirical model of the Canadian economy that indicates that the tax will have substantial negative impacts, including a 1.8% decline in Gross Domestic Product and the net loss of about 184,000 jobs, even after taking account of jobs created by new government spending and household rebates of the carbon charges. The drop in GDP works out to about $1,540 in current dollars per employed person.” The report forecasted the carbon tax of $170/ton would create additional debt of $22 billion and noted almost 50% of the job losses (78.000) would be in Ontario.

To top things off when Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland tabled her budget on April 19, 2021 it was full of spending plans aimed at supporting renewable energy and ending fossil fuel use. The budget contained $17 billion in spending plans and tax relief measures including $5 billion for the “Net Zero Accelerator” additional to the $3 billion previously committed! The $8 billion seems aimed at large emitting companies like those in the steel and cement business.  Another $4.4 billion was earmarked to “retrofit” residential buildings.  Also included were generous tax breaks (50% for 10 years) for companies manufacturing electric vehicles, (NB: They and the Ontario government handed Ford $590 million of our tax dollars a year ago for EV manufacturing at their Oakville plant), solar panels and presumably the world’s largest wind turbine blades at 107 metres long to a Quebec company who just received $25 million! 

The Trudeau led government also on June 29, 2021 announced they were speeding up the goal to have every light duty vehicle sold by 2035 to be “zero emissions” vehicles rather than 2040.  The Minister of Transport, Alghabra has already handed out $600 million of our tax dollars as rebates to those purchasing EV and now wants more!

It seems pretty clear the Strathmere Group, with the leadership of Gerald Butts in respect to this particular declaration, will brag they have been successful at achieving it. It was done with great pain to taxpayers, ratepayers, Canadian families and our business community with an emphasis on small and medium sized companies who due to the financial effects of escalating costs lost their competitiveness or moved to a more welcoming community.  

What they actually accomplished was neither the creation of “clean energy jobs” or increased “prosperity”!

Declaration target # 5 

Declare a moratorium on industrial fishing and development in the Arctic Ocean until there is a comprehensive scientific analysis incorporating the newest information on climate change impacts and until there is a system for integrated, precautionary ecosystem-based management of industrial activities.

AND

Declaration target # 6

Work cooperatively with all Arctic countries and Peoples to curb all sources of pollution of the Arctic, including from land-based sources

Both of those “Declarations” committed to by the “Strathmere Group” and their 21 US cousins back in June 2009 were focused on the Arctic; ocean and  lands so, we will look at them together.

Back in June 2019 when Jonathon Wilkinson was Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard he tabled Bill C-68 declared as the “modernized Fisheries Act and it passed Parliament June 20, 2019.  Needless to say, he was pleased and made the statement: “Our government is working hard to protect fish and fish habitat from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and the modernized Fisheries Act will do just that.” Wilkinson was also quoted stating: “It raises the bar in making sure that decision-making is based on science and evidence.”

Co-incidentally Bill C-48 sponsored by Marc Garneau, MP for Westmount Quebec and, Minister of Transport, also received 3rd reading the following day on June 21, 2019. The latter Bill was an Act regulating vessels transporting crude oil from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast. The Bill killed any hopes of either the Northern Gateway Pipeline or the “Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, which would run from the oil sands across Indigenous lands to BC’s northern coast, along with Indigenous peoples’ hopes for a better economic future” from proceeding!

It seems odd while these two Liberal Ministers are so concerned about the fossil fuel sector and its potential damage to the eco-system, they basically ignored the continued dumping of raw sewage by cities along the St. Lawrence River like LongueuilMontreal and Quebec City!  Collectively those three cities reported dumping about 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River! 

Apparently marine life in the St. Lawrence River is not important but “potential” oil spills off of BC’s north coast will protect marine life as will no commercial fishing in part of the Arctic Ocean!

Many of us recall the happenstance related to the Newfoundland cod stock collapse and it is interesting to know one of the causes was “foreign overfishing”!  An extensive report from 2002 noted: “Canadian media and government public relations people often cite foreign overfishing as the primary cause of the “fishing out” of the north Atlantic cod stocks. Many nations took fish off the coast of Newfoundland, including Spain, Portugal, other countries of the European Community (EC), the former Soviet Union, Japan, and Korea.”  The report also noted: “There can be little doubt that foreign overfishing was a contributing factor in the cod stock collapse, and that the capitalist dynamics that were at work in Canada were all too similar for the foreign vessels and companies. But all of the blame cannot be put there, no matter how easy it is to do.”  Bad management by the Ministry is also cited as a cause in the report reflecting the moratorium placed on them on July 2, 1992 by the Honourable John Crosbie that has never been lifted since being imposed!

From all appearances commercial fishing to any great extent has never occurred in the Arctic Ocean and Bill C-68 will presumably preserve that observation for Canada’s commercial fishing fleet.

Along with the passing of Bill C-68 back on October 3, 2018 a legally binding international agreement was signed by Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States, China, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the European Union and Denmark.  The agreement will reputedly protect the Central Arctic Ocean from “unregulated fishing”. The agreement was reported as becoming law on June 18, 2021 so that particular section of the Arctic Ocean (three million square kilometres) will presumably be regulated.

Should one wonder why China was included it’s not because they fish, commercially, in the Arctic Ocean but perhaps because according to an article penned in August 2020 noted: “Estimates of the total size of China’s global fishing fleet vary widely. By some calculations, China has anywhere from 200,000 to 800,000 fishing boats, accounting for nearly half of the world’s fishing activity.“  The article went on to state: “China is not only the world’s biggest seafood exporter, the country’s population also accounts for more than a third of all fish consumption worldwide.

One should wonder, why would China agree to sign the agreement? 

In response to the foregoing question, one should note Canada has been extremely slow in building infrastructure to support our northern territories so without roads, railways or ports any developments of new mines, etc. are extremely costly so little development has taken place.  Suddenly back on August 13, 2019 Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport announced a project: “$21.5 million to complete preparatory work necessary for the first phase of construction of the Grays Bay Road and Port Project. The proposed 230 kilometre all-season road would be the first road to connect Nunavut to the rest of Canada.“  That particular project, co-incidentally, was seen as the means to cash in on opening of the Arctic which was something China had attempted to accomplish back in 2011 via a Chinese company (MMG Limited) whose principal shareholder was the Chinese government.  At that time MMG backed away as the cost of the roads and port made it too costly! As noted in an article in the Walrus on January 4, 2021, “The vast mineral deposits of zinc and copper near Izok Lake, in the Northwest Territories, lay glittering but ultimately untouchable“ until Garneau’s pledge. Shortly after than pledge by Garneau, Mr. G. Gao, CEO of MMG in a press release said;  “On behalf of MMG, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Canadian government for their support and funding,”.

The Walrus article goes on to note “CHINA’S GROWING INTEREST in the Canadian Arctic, one of the least defended regions on earth, has been a calculated move. In 2013, de­spite not being one of the eight Arctic nations, China gained official observer status at the Arctic Council, an intergov­ernmental forum, and later declared it­self a “near­-Arctic state”—a phrase that seems to ignore the 5,000 kilometres between its northern­most point and the Arc­tic Circle.

It seems ironic Garneau’s Bill C-48 designed to halt Canadian fossil fuel exports was passed just two months earlier before he turned around and catered to Chinese interests. 

It seems apparent the Strathmere Group partially attained their aim for Declaration # 5 but not in its entirety so it is only a “passing grade”.

Based on the foregoing happenings (so well reported by the Walrus), the current Liberal government, by catering to the whims of the CCP looks likely to allow the creation of mining projects for those minerals desired by China. That being the case one should expect, at the least, a modicum of pollution to occur in the Arctic meaning Declaration # 6 will be destined to fall into the Strathmere Groups first fail category.

NB:  The final Declaration # 7 and the associated appraisal of it will be posted in the next few days.