When Alison Redford became Minister of Justice and Attorney General under Ed Stelmach on March 13, 2008 she took an oath to uphold the office in the best interest of Albertans, but her actions since have been anything but "honorable". What follows is what I have learned about the real Alison Redford.
First, some background as described to Premier Ed Stelmach;
Feb. 9, 2010
Mr. Stelmach,
Since 2006 I have been trying to get you to investigate lawyer fraud and possible corruption in departments designed to protect Albertans and all you have done is pass the buck to others to sweep under the rug, confirming the fact there is a level of corruption in your government.
What I am referring to here is fraud by 2 small time lawyers Hamish Henderson of Edmonton and Martin Driessen of Barrhead. Henderson was hired for me by Alberta Legal Aid to act in my best interest when a former girlfriend moved out of my house and hired Driessen to represent her. These two conspired to defraud me by hiding evidence, conducting an improper Discoveries Hearing and submitting false information to the presiding judge, costing me over $31,000.00.
Complaints to the Alberta Law Society have been treated much like your responses. They continually claim there is not enough evidence that a fraud has been committed to investigate. A response from Henderson is peppered with lies and as far as I know they have never asked Driessen to respond to my accusations. Although I have a large folder proving evidence of the fraud the ALS has also refused to grant me a chance to sit with them and put my proof on the table.
Numerous correspondence to Alberta legal Aid has proven equally fruitless. As they were responsible for providing Henderson, they should be concerned with how he conducts business but they have assumed the position of believing Henderson’s lies submitted to the Alberta law Society and also refusing to view my documentation.
Alberta Justice and the Solicitor General have not reacted to my complaints, and have taken the position of leaving this in the hands of the Alberta Law Society who are assuming the position of final authority and obviously protecting their own in this matter.
This case has caused me 7 years of stress and your government is to blame for ignoring lawyer fraud and continually denying me my rights to fair and impartial hearing and refusing to investigate.
Result; Ed Stelmach did not respond
Then to Alison Redford;
Sent March 11, 2010
To Alison Redford
ministry of justice
Ms. Redford,
I am not amused nor surprised that you continually support criminal activity in Alberta.
It's easy to see where your priorities lie when you deny Albertans the right to fair hearing and refuse an investigation into fraud and corruption by 2 crooked lawyers protected by Alberta Legal Aid and the Law Society of Alberta. Decades of ignoring the facts and concealing evidence seem to be a bad habit with this government. Albertans deserve to know the truth about the type of people we have making our laws and who they apply to.
Vern Redel
Barrhead
Then the response from Redford's office
Legal Services Division
9833 - 109 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Canada T5K 2E8
Mr. Vern Redel
v_e_r@telus.net
Dear Mr. Redel:
RE: Legal Aid
Our File No.:
Your File No.:
March 25, 2010
General No: 780/422-0500
FAX No.: 780/425-0307
Thank you for your email dated March 11, 2010 to Honourable Alison Redford, a.c.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General regarding your complaint with the Law Society
of Alberta and your concerns with Legal Aid. I have been asked to respond on behalf of
the Minister. .
In previous replies to you dated March 3, 2009 and May 12, 2009, previously attached
for your reference, and March 3, 2010, you were advised that the responsibilities and
jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General are such that neither the
Minister nor any official of Alberta Justice can become involved in private legal matters.
As there is nothing further we can add to the information already provided, this will be
our final reply on the matter.
Yours truly,
~C. Milroy
Research Officer
----------------------------------------
I'm sure there are many other Albertans with similar stories that are ignored by the press, who have been mistreated by this government and it's members.
So Alison Redford now wants to be Premier of Alberta.
Try to imagine being in my position with her at the helm.
For other interesting info. see;
http://joealbertan.blogspot.com/2011/04/alison-redford-has-no-credibility.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QljdWYCN3nM
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Stelmach 's Shakey Grasp on Human Rights
http://ezralevant.com/2009/04/ed-stelmach-puts-lindsay-black.html
From Ezra Levant's book Shakedown.
Ed Stelmach puts Lindsay Blackett in his place
By Ezra Levant on April 28, 2009 3:13 PM
Ed Stelmach, Alberta's weak premier, shows he's still strong when it comes to pushing his MLAs around. Today he put that uppity cabinet minister Lindsay Blackett (at left) back in his place.
For months, Blackett had been musing about reforming Alberta's out-of-control human rights commission -- the one that put me through a 900-day prosecution for publishing some cartoons, and the one that sentenced an Alberta pastor to a lifetime speech ban about gay marriage, even banning him from giving church sermons or writing private e-mails about it.
Here are Blackett's bold comments in the Calgary Sun, just two months ago:
"People have the right to say what they believe and Albertans strongly believe in that right," says Lindsay.
"We've got to try and find what was the purpose of the human rights commission to start with back in 1972."
"For me, it's back to the future and the simplicity of what the human rights commissions is supposed to be. It was originally just intended to provide protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed, religion and so on with respect to employment, accommodation and access to services. That's it."
"It wasn't about hurt feelings. The reason a lot of human rights commissions are disrespected across the country is because they've forgotten that.
"We want the commission to be a quasi-judicial body that has some teeth, that has some credibility but doesn't operate like a kangaroo court."
..."People shouldn't feel they can't come to Canada, like a university professor who talks about a subject matter and then there are reprisals," says the cabinet minister.
"They should have the ability to say what they say and somebody should have their ability to have the counter argument. That is what a free and open society does. Let's get away from trying to mediate everybody's feelings."
Lindsay talks about being turned down by a girl at a school dance with all his pals watching.
"You feel about two inches tall. I guess maybe I should have taken her to the Human Rights Commission because I had hurt feelings. Where does it end?"
His plans have not been taken to Tory MLAs for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, but he is preparing and sounds confident.
"We haven't talked about it at caucus or cabinet yet, but I've already gone through a few steps. Generally there's support, the support to make a change and do something and not just sit back and say because it's a tough subject we should stay away from it.
"I don't think provisions for more freedom of speech are a problem. I think people on both sides of the political spectrum appreciate it."
That's pretty good stuff -- he even calls his own agency a "kangaroo court".
Blackett said all of this in public. And now Stelmach is rubbing his face in it, refusing Blackett to bring in these reforms.
How can Blackett not resign? He has publicly denounced his own agency, and outlined its problems, but his premier refuses to act. How can he administer something he knows is unjust?
I know why Stelmach wants to keep Blackett on the job -- because Blackett is black, and thus gives the government a politically correct patina. Stelmach wants Blackett to smile -- but not to think. He's window-dressing. The one thing Blackett has worked on the past year, the one thing he stuck his neck out for, is the one thing that his own premier has sand-bagged him on.
Here are the changes that Stelmach approved. He's actually giving the HRC a $1.7 million raise.
That's right. In the face of their abusive conduct, their bullying and censoring, their Islamic fatwa against me for publishing a cartoon, and their atheist fatwa against Rev. Boissoin, he's actually rewarding them with a 25% pay hike.
Look at the bottom of that backgrounder if you want to see just how dense Stelmach is. In his rationale for clotheslining Blackett's proposals to dump the censorship provision, Stelmach writes this incomprehensible bumf:
Alberta's human rights legislation will balance freedom of speech with our responsibility to others.
Huh? I know about my freedom of speech. It is an ancient, inalienable right. It happens to be enshrined in Canada's Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. But this "responsibility to others"? That's a legal concept now? So my freedom of speech -- my right to publish a magazine, Rev. Boissoin's right to give a sermon -- is limited by some new responsibility to -- I love this part -- "others"?
So I can't publish a magazine if someone "other" than me doesn't like it. So Rev. Boissoin can't give a sermon if someone "other" than him doesn't like it.
And then there's this gem:
Jurisdictional issues are complex, but recognizing the responsibilities that come with freedom of expression is also important.
That's not just grammatically novel, it's legal junk. I've read our Charter a dozen times. Where is the list of responsibilities that I have to submit to before Stelmach will let me have my freedom of expression?
Hey, don't knock Stelmach. As he boasts -- in the weirdest, most self-conscious "official biography" I've ever read -- he almost went to law school. I know some people who boast they went to law school. I know some folks who boast they didn't go to law school. I've never met anyone so insecure intellectually, with such an inferiority complex, that they say they almost went, in some sort of plea to be accepted by the cool kids. That's just weird.
But when you listen to him talk about human rights -- listen to this audio clip of him in the last election -- you can understand.
Look, the premier doesn't have to be the smartest man in the province. He can hire the smartest men in the province. He just needs to show some judgment and leadership. Instead, I really think he wrote this incoherent crap himself.
My favourite fabrication has to be this one:
Government found that removing "publications" from the Act could have serious consequences.
That's just a lie. Ontario and other provinces' HRCs don't have "publications" in their censorship laws. In fact, even the abominable section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act only applies to the Internet and telephones, not to publications. I'm not saying that's any better. I'm just saying that it's a lie to suggest that there are "serious consequences" to removing this censorship power -- other than the serious consequence of freedom.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Stelmach has made Alberta the worst-governed province in Canada. That was evident in his recent budget -- a $5-billion deficit when oil is still at $50/barrel. Ralph Klein chalked up back-to-back billion-dollar surpluses when oil was in the $30 range. But then Ralph didn't have Stelmach's brainwave of driving energy companies to Saskatchewan through punitive royalty schemes. That province is growing, not in a recession like Alberta is. Stelmach spends $11,000 per man, woman and child in Alberta. "Liberal" Dalton McGuinty spent $8,500/person, and Bob Rae's biggest budget as NDP premier of Ontario only spent $5,300 adjusted for inflation.
My point is that Stelmach isn't just stupid (and as his bio suggests, extremely sensitive about it), but he's hardly a conservative.
Alberta Tories are rarely conservative when it comes to spending -- just like with Hollywood celebrities, being rich is a good solution to making stupid decisions.
But Alberta Tories generally have some common sense on more basic issues, like freedom of speech. Lindsay Blackett had that common sense. But Ed Stelmach cut him down to size today.
It's a political and personal humiliation for Blackett, but who cares -- he can resign if he doesn't like it. The rest of us Albertans have nowhere to go to escape from Stelmach's blunders.
Send a note of consolation to Blackett, by clicking here. Ask him how he can continue to serve as minister of what he called a kanagaroo court, now that Stelmach has vetoed his key recommendation.
And as to Stelmach himself -- why waste your time writing a letter? If he ignores his only black cabinet minister on human rights, why would he listen to you?
From Ezra Levant's book Shakedown.
Ed Stelmach puts Lindsay Blackett in his place
By Ezra Levant on April 28, 2009 3:13 PM
Ed Stelmach, Alberta's weak premier, shows he's still strong when it comes to pushing his MLAs around. Today he put that uppity cabinet minister Lindsay Blackett (at left) back in his place.
For months, Blackett had been musing about reforming Alberta's out-of-control human rights commission -- the one that put me through a 900-day prosecution for publishing some cartoons, and the one that sentenced an Alberta pastor to a lifetime speech ban about gay marriage, even banning him from giving church sermons or writing private e-mails about it.
Here are Blackett's bold comments in the Calgary Sun, just two months ago:
"People have the right to say what they believe and Albertans strongly believe in that right," says Lindsay.
"We've got to try and find what was the purpose of the human rights commission to start with back in 1972."
"For me, it's back to the future and the simplicity of what the human rights commissions is supposed to be. It was originally just intended to provide protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed, religion and so on with respect to employment, accommodation and access to services. That's it."
"It wasn't about hurt feelings. The reason a lot of human rights commissions are disrespected across the country is because they've forgotten that.
"We want the commission to be a quasi-judicial body that has some teeth, that has some credibility but doesn't operate like a kangaroo court."
..."People shouldn't feel they can't come to Canada, like a university professor who talks about a subject matter and then there are reprisals," says the cabinet minister.
"They should have the ability to say what they say and somebody should have their ability to have the counter argument. That is what a free and open society does. Let's get away from trying to mediate everybody's feelings."
Lindsay talks about being turned down by a girl at a school dance with all his pals watching.
"You feel about two inches tall. I guess maybe I should have taken her to the Human Rights Commission because I had hurt feelings. Where does it end?"
His plans have not been taken to Tory MLAs for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, but he is preparing and sounds confident.
"We haven't talked about it at caucus or cabinet yet, but I've already gone through a few steps. Generally there's support, the support to make a change and do something and not just sit back and say because it's a tough subject we should stay away from it.
"I don't think provisions for more freedom of speech are a problem. I think people on both sides of the political spectrum appreciate it."
That's pretty good stuff -- he even calls his own agency a "kangaroo court".
Blackett said all of this in public. And now Stelmach is rubbing his face in it, refusing Blackett to bring in these reforms.
How can Blackett not resign? He has publicly denounced his own agency, and outlined its problems, but his premier refuses to act. How can he administer something he knows is unjust?
I know why Stelmach wants to keep Blackett on the job -- because Blackett is black, and thus gives the government a politically correct patina. Stelmach wants Blackett to smile -- but not to think. He's window-dressing. The one thing Blackett has worked on the past year, the one thing he stuck his neck out for, is the one thing that his own premier has sand-bagged him on.
Here are the changes that Stelmach approved. He's actually giving the HRC a $1.7 million raise.
That's right. In the face of their abusive conduct, their bullying and censoring, their Islamic fatwa against me for publishing a cartoon, and their atheist fatwa against Rev. Boissoin, he's actually rewarding them with a 25% pay hike.
Look at the bottom of that backgrounder if you want to see just how dense Stelmach is. In his rationale for clotheslining Blackett's proposals to dump the censorship provision, Stelmach writes this incomprehensible bumf:
Alberta's human rights legislation will balance freedom of speech with our responsibility to others.
Huh? I know about my freedom of speech. It is an ancient, inalienable right. It happens to be enshrined in Canada's Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. But this "responsibility to others"? That's a legal concept now? So my freedom of speech -- my right to publish a magazine, Rev. Boissoin's right to give a sermon -- is limited by some new responsibility to -- I love this part -- "others"?
So I can't publish a magazine if someone "other" than me doesn't like it. So Rev. Boissoin can't give a sermon if someone "other" than him doesn't like it.
And then there's this gem:
Jurisdictional issues are complex, but recognizing the responsibilities that come with freedom of expression is also important.
That's not just grammatically novel, it's legal junk. I've read our Charter a dozen times. Where is the list of responsibilities that I have to submit to before Stelmach will let me have my freedom of expression?
Hey, don't knock Stelmach. As he boasts -- in the weirdest, most self-conscious "official biography" I've ever read -- he almost went to law school. I know some people who boast they went to law school. I know some folks who boast they didn't go to law school. I've never met anyone so insecure intellectually, with such an inferiority complex, that they say they almost went, in some sort of plea to be accepted by the cool kids. That's just weird.
But when you listen to him talk about human rights -- listen to this audio clip of him in the last election -- you can understand.
Look, the premier doesn't have to be the smartest man in the province. He can hire the smartest men in the province. He just needs to show some judgment and leadership. Instead, I really think he wrote this incoherent crap himself.
My favourite fabrication has to be this one:
Government found that removing "publications" from the Act could have serious consequences.
That's just a lie. Ontario and other provinces' HRCs don't have "publications" in their censorship laws. In fact, even the abominable section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act only applies to the Internet and telephones, not to publications. I'm not saying that's any better. I'm just saying that it's a lie to suggest that there are "serious consequences" to removing this censorship power -- other than the serious consequence of freedom.
Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Stelmach has made Alberta the worst-governed province in Canada. That was evident in his recent budget -- a $5-billion deficit when oil is still at $50/barrel. Ralph Klein chalked up back-to-back billion-dollar surpluses when oil was in the $30 range. But then Ralph didn't have Stelmach's brainwave of driving energy companies to Saskatchewan through punitive royalty schemes. That province is growing, not in a recession like Alberta is. Stelmach spends $11,000 per man, woman and child in Alberta. "Liberal" Dalton McGuinty spent $8,500/person, and Bob Rae's biggest budget as NDP premier of Ontario only spent $5,300 adjusted for inflation.
My point is that Stelmach isn't just stupid (and as his bio suggests, extremely sensitive about it), but he's hardly a conservative.
Alberta Tories are rarely conservative when it comes to spending -- just like with Hollywood celebrities, being rich is a good solution to making stupid decisions.
But Alberta Tories generally have some common sense on more basic issues, like freedom of speech. Lindsay Blackett had that common sense. But Ed Stelmach cut him down to size today.
It's a political and personal humiliation for Blackett, but who cares -- he can resign if he doesn't like it. The rest of us Albertans have nowhere to go to escape from Stelmach's blunders.
Send a note of consolation to Blackett, by clicking here. Ask him how he can continue to serve as minister of what he called a kanagaroo court, now that Stelmach has vetoed his key recommendation.
And as to Stelmach himself -- why waste your time writing a letter? If he ignores his only black cabinet minister on human rights, why would he listen to you?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Cost of Alberta political presence at Olympics
Cost of Alberta political presence at Olympics;
According to Tourism Minister Cindy Ady;
Alberta cabinet ministers spent $151,000 at the Vancouver Olympics.She says Alberta spent $6.6 million overall during the Games - for the train lease, Alberta Plaza and other costs.
The train cost $4 million to lease.
A ticket cost $499 for individuals, and much more for corporations, but untold numbers of journalists and others “helpful” to Alberta piled on at no charge. Travel Alberta spent more than $200,000 to distribute free iPod Touches to guests on the train.
Ady and Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett, who spent the entire games in Vancouver, lived in rented downtown condos.
The government's total budget for Olympic self-promotion was $13 million.
http://communities.canada.com/CALGARYHERALD/blogs/braidbuzz/archive/2010/03/23/cabinet-spent-151-000-at-games-but-no-free-condo.aspx
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/2010wintergames/Cost+Alberta+political+presence+Olympics/2714183/story.html
According to Tourism Minister Cindy Ady;
Alberta cabinet ministers spent $151,000 at the Vancouver Olympics.She says Alberta spent $6.6 million overall during the Games - for the train lease, Alberta Plaza and other costs.
The train cost $4 million to lease.
A ticket cost $499 for individuals, and much more for corporations, but untold numbers of journalists and others “helpful” to Alberta piled on at no charge. Travel Alberta spent more than $200,000 to distribute free iPod Touches to guests on the train.
Ady and Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett, who spent the entire games in Vancouver, lived in rented downtown condos.
The government's total budget for Olympic self-promotion was $13 million.
http://communities.canada.com/CALGARYHERALD/blogs/braidbuzz/archive/2010/03/23/cabinet-spent-151-000-at-games-but-no-free-condo.aspx
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/2010wintergames/Cost+Alberta+political+presence+Olympics/2714183/story.html
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Fraud by Alberta Legal Aid Lawyer
Judges can refuse lawyers' withdraw requests: SCOC
By LAURA PAYTON, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: March 26, 2010 7:26pm
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court has backed judges’ authority to overrule lawyers who want to quit clients who don’t have legal aid funding.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Marshall Rothstein said Friday a judge can refuse a lawyer’s request to withdraw but “the authority must be exercised sparingly.”
“A court has the authority to control its own process and to supervise counsel who are officers of the court,” he wrote.
“(But) refusing to allow counsel to withdraw should truly be a remedy of last resort and should only be relied upon where it is necessary to prevent serious harm to the administration of justice.”
Jennie Cunningham, a Yukon lawyer, tried to stop working for a client in 2006 when the client didn’t update his file at legal aid and his funding was withdrawn. The court refused to let her drop the file, sparking a four-year journey to the Supreme Court.
“Ordering counsel to work for free is not a decision that should be made lightly ... access to justice should not fall solely on the shoulders of the criminal defence bar and, in particular, legal aid lawyers,” Rothstein wrote.
Courts should look at several factors if a lawyer tries to withdraw because a client doesn’t pay. Those include whether clients can represent themselves or find another lawyer; the delay for the client; fairness for the defence lawyer and the impact on the Crown, co-accused, complainants, witnesses and jurors.
I have experienced this personally in 2006. My Alberta Legal Aid lawyer handed my evidence in a civil matter over to the opposing lawyer, then quit, knowing Legal Aid would not continue funding. I then had to borrow money to hire another lawyer who could not defend me without the evidence. I risked losing my home if I pursued a trial.
Without proof of perjury, I was counseled to settle. My cost; $31,000.00.
I now have my evidence back through my lawyer, while Alberta Legal Aid, the Law Society of Alberta, and Alberta justice continually deny it's existence and are covering up this lawyer fraud.
Vern Redel
By LAURA PAYTON, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: March 26, 2010 7:26pm
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court has backed judges’ authority to overrule lawyers who want to quit clients who don’t have legal aid funding.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Marshall Rothstein said Friday a judge can refuse a lawyer’s request to withdraw but “the authority must be exercised sparingly.”
“A court has the authority to control its own process and to supervise counsel who are officers of the court,” he wrote.
“(But) refusing to allow counsel to withdraw should truly be a remedy of last resort and should only be relied upon where it is necessary to prevent serious harm to the administration of justice.”
Jennie Cunningham, a Yukon lawyer, tried to stop working for a client in 2006 when the client didn’t update his file at legal aid and his funding was withdrawn. The court refused to let her drop the file, sparking a four-year journey to the Supreme Court.
“Ordering counsel to work for free is not a decision that should be made lightly ... access to justice should not fall solely on the shoulders of the criminal defence bar and, in particular, legal aid lawyers,” Rothstein wrote.
Courts should look at several factors if a lawyer tries to withdraw because a client doesn’t pay. Those include whether clients can represent themselves or find another lawyer; the delay for the client; fairness for the defence lawyer and the impact on the Crown, co-accused, complainants, witnesses and jurors.
I have experienced this personally in 2006. My Alberta Legal Aid lawyer handed my evidence in a civil matter over to the opposing lawyer, then quit, knowing Legal Aid would not continue funding. I then had to borrow money to hire another lawyer who could not defend me without the evidence. I risked losing my home if I pursued a trial.
Without proof of perjury, I was counseled to settle. My cost; $31,000.00.
I now have my evidence back through my lawyer, while Alberta Legal Aid, the Law Society of Alberta, and Alberta justice continually deny it's existence and are covering up this lawyer fraud.
Vern Redel
Stelmach Defends Cuts To Social Programs
The Edmonton Sun wrote on Saturday, March 27/2010
clara.ho@sunmedia.ca
My comments are in bold and parenthesis >( )
Ed defends cuts to social programs
Premier Ed Stelmach vowed to continue to protect the province’s “most vulnerable” individuals as the government cut spending for some social programs through the recession.
(as we read though we find this "vow" is more to protect Yvonne Fritz, making it moot. The word "continue" is meant to imply they care)
Tabling the budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, which was passed Thursday, required “tough choices and tough decisions,” said Stelmach at the Hotel MacDonald on Friday.
(Stelmach displays his style of belt-tightening here by using the Hotel MacDonald for his speech while the York sits empty. His self-imposed raise is still in place plus the April 1 increases for all. pure BS )
“Our goal is to tighten spending from administration wherever possible. We recognize that it may mean some rationalization of services and it may mean some services are reduced,” he said.
(Meaning he defends the cuts to social programs)
“My objective, and that of the minister’s, is take whatever steps we can to minimize impact to clients.”
(cuts that people might not notice immediately )
The premier’s comments came following a week of backlash from critics charging the government for cutting funding for foster children with special needs.
(Stelmach goes into damage control to try to minimize the fallout.)
NDP critic Rachel Notley released the incriminating documents on Monday that showed plans to reduce funding. That information had been presented to foster parents the previous week by Edmonton and area Child and Family Services Authority staff, with rules to come into effect April 1.
(Notley just caught this in time, just before the cuts were to come into effect. If she had taken it to Fritz first, it would have been swept under the rug and delayed until April 1)
Children’s Services Minister Yvonne Fritz immediately apologized, claiming she was not aware of the plans and that department staff were told two weeks ago that there would be no cuts to the program.
(A LIE. Fritz got caught and quickly dreamed up an excuse. As minister, If she did not know what's going on in her department she should be fired! )
She later told reporters she believed the plans had been scrapped last year.
(Fritz is the minister but knows nothing about current events in her department).
“This came up a year ago and, according to her, that was already put to bed,” Stelmach said Friday, adding Fritz is slated to meet with the families.
(Yea right Ed. According to her. The year-old plan backfired and Stelmach is still in damage control.)
“My concern is, that this was taken off the table according to the minister, and this is still floating out there. Then there is a need to ensure that there’s clear communication either between foster parents or those agencies, who have had something given to them by whoever is communicating information that is contrary to what’s in the budget.”
(Contrary to PC code that enforces secrecy among government staff until the plan is in place. Someone blew the whistle. Either Stelmach is clueless or Fritz is lying to Stelmach.)
Rick Semel, CEO of the Edmonton and area Child and Family Services Authority, resigned from his position on Wednesday. Stelmach would not comment on whether Semel received a severance package.
(watch for this guy Rick Semel to reappear in another department. And Stelmach has no right concealing information concerning public expenses. Non-compliance should mean Stelmach's immediate dismissal during a public inquiry.)
Vern Redel
UPDATE; When you kick over a rock you never know what form of snake you'll find.
Rick Semel is married to Patricia (Patty) Meade, former CEO of Alberta Health Services. The Alberta PCs (Politically Corrupt) don't try very hard to hide the facts they make patronizing appointments to keep their friends happy with public funds.
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090902/edm_bonuspaid_090902/20090902/?hub=EdmontonHome
Liberals slam province's spending on bonuses and severance packages
Updated: Wed Sep. 02 2009 16:41:44
ctvedmonton.ca
Critics are crying foul about the Alberta government spending millions on severance packages, while at the same time spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on bonuses.
After months of correspondence with the government, the Alberta Liberals say they finally received the full disclosure and the severance package of former CEO of Alberta Health Services Patty Meade.
For less than nine months of work, Meade received $1.3 million of taxpayer's money. And included in that, was a $257,000 bonus for work that Liberals argue was never performed.
"Taxpayers have every right to question this government as to why they continue with these lavish payouts at a time when we're restricting and limiting access because supposedly we have a shortage of funds to public health care," said Hugh MacDonald, Alberta Liberal finance critic.
Alberta Health Services current president and CEO Dr. Stephen Duckett says Meade's severance package was her legal entitlement.
However, Meade's contract says her bonus would be two times the average annual bonus, which can be up to 25 per cent of an employee's annual salary.
But the problem is she worked less than nine months with no bonus paid, therefore there is no average.
"All I will say is that is the contract she had with Alberta Health Services and we abide by the contract," said Duckett.
Duckett says Meade was terminated without just cause as part of restructuring and shortening the lines of communication.
MacDonald says he's been asking Health Minister Ron Liepert to explain the large severance package and the bonuses. The Liberals say they received a letter from Liepert stating, "Our government offers clear, positive alternatives to all Albertans. I believe these choices offered may provide you with some insight as to why we continue to be successful."
"Whenever I ask questions you just get cheek back from him, you never get a straight answer," said MacDonald.
With files from CTV's Kevin Armstrong
NOW; "Who is Patricia (or)Patty (or)Paddy Meade,
and why should we care?" you might ask. She has been lurking around the Alberta PC backrooms and getting some pretty choice appointments. It kinda makes one wonder what her true talents are.
From the Alberta Government site;
https://hermis.alberta.ca/paa/Details.aspx?st=%22Transportation%22&cp=90&ReturnUrl=%2Fpaa%2FSearch.aspx%3Fst%3D%2522Transportation%2522%26cp%3D90&dv=True&DeptID=1&ObjectID=GR0042
Patricia Meade, Deputy Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: 2000-2004
Paddy Meade, Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services in the Northwest Territories: 2009-2011
A little research goes a long way, and I could probably dedicate a whole post about Ms. Meade indulging herself in public troughs, but frankly, when I started looking her up I didn't expect to find a pattern of taking government appointments, then leaving soon after. And no doubt, with fine severance packages.
Vern Redel
clara.ho@sunmedia.ca
My comments are in bold and parenthesis >( )
Ed defends cuts to social programs
Premier Ed Stelmach vowed to continue to protect the province’s “most vulnerable” individuals as the government cut spending for some social programs through the recession.
(as we read though we find this "vow" is more to protect Yvonne Fritz, making it moot. The word "continue" is meant to imply they care)
Tabling the budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year, which was passed Thursday, required “tough choices and tough decisions,” said Stelmach at the Hotel MacDonald on Friday.
(Stelmach displays his style of belt-tightening here by using the Hotel MacDonald for his speech while the York sits empty. His self-imposed raise is still in place plus the April 1 increases for all. pure BS )
“Our goal is to tighten spending from administration wherever possible. We recognize that it may mean some rationalization of services and it may mean some services are reduced,” he said.
(Meaning he defends the cuts to social programs)
“My objective, and that of the minister’s, is take whatever steps we can to minimize impact to clients.”
(cuts that people might not notice immediately )
The premier’s comments came following a week of backlash from critics charging the government for cutting funding for foster children with special needs.
(Stelmach goes into damage control to try to minimize the fallout.)
NDP critic Rachel Notley released the incriminating documents on Monday that showed plans to reduce funding. That information had been presented to foster parents the previous week by Edmonton and area Child and Family Services Authority staff, with rules to come into effect April 1.
(Notley just caught this in time, just before the cuts were to come into effect. If she had taken it to Fritz first, it would have been swept under the rug and delayed until April 1)
Children’s Services Minister Yvonne Fritz immediately apologized, claiming she was not aware of the plans and that department staff were told two weeks ago that there would be no cuts to the program.
(A LIE. Fritz got caught and quickly dreamed up an excuse. As minister, If she did not know what's going on in her department she should be fired! )
She later told reporters she believed the plans had been scrapped last year.
(Fritz is the minister but knows nothing about current events in her department).
“This came up a year ago and, according to her, that was already put to bed,” Stelmach said Friday, adding Fritz is slated to meet with the families.
(Yea right Ed. According to her. The year-old plan backfired and Stelmach is still in damage control.)
“My concern is, that this was taken off the table according to the minister, and this is still floating out there. Then there is a need to ensure that there’s clear communication either between foster parents or those agencies, who have had something given to them by whoever is communicating information that is contrary to what’s in the budget.”
(Contrary to PC code that enforces secrecy among government staff until the plan is in place. Someone blew the whistle. Either Stelmach is clueless or Fritz is lying to Stelmach.)
Rick Semel, CEO of the Edmonton and area Child and Family Services Authority, resigned from his position on Wednesday. Stelmach would not comment on whether Semel received a severance package.
(watch for this guy Rick Semel to reappear in another department. And Stelmach has no right concealing information concerning public expenses. Non-compliance should mean Stelmach's immediate dismissal during a public inquiry.)
Vern Redel
UPDATE; When you kick over a rock you never know what form of snake you'll find.
Rick Semel is married to Patricia (Patty) Meade, former CEO of Alberta Health Services. The Alberta PCs (Politically Corrupt) don't try very hard to hide the facts they make patronizing appointments to keep their friends happy with public funds.
http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090902/edm_bonuspaid_090902/20090902/?hub=EdmontonHome
Liberals slam province's spending on bonuses and severance packages
Updated: Wed Sep. 02 2009 16:41:44
ctvedmonton.ca
Critics are crying foul about the Alberta government spending millions on severance packages, while at the same time spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on bonuses.
After months of correspondence with the government, the Alberta Liberals say they finally received the full disclosure and the severance package of former CEO of Alberta Health Services Patty Meade.
For less than nine months of work, Meade received $1.3 million of taxpayer's money. And included in that, was a $257,000 bonus for work that Liberals argue was never performed.
"Taxpayers have every right to question this government as to why they continue with these lavish payouts at a time when we're restricting and limiting access because supposedly we have a shortage of funds to public health care," said Hugh MacDonald, Alberta Liberal finance critic.
Alberta Health Services current president and CEO Dr. Stephen Duckett says Meade's severance package was her legal entitlement.
However, Meade's contract says her bonus would be two times the average annual bonus, which can be up to 25 per cent of an employee's annual salary.
But the problem is she worked less than nine months with no bonus paid, therefore there is no average.
"All I will say is that is the contract she had with Alberta Health Services and we abide by the contract," said Duckett.
Duckett says Meade was terminated without just cause as part of restructuring and shortening the lines of communication.
MacDonald says he's been asking Health Minister Ron Liepert to explain the large severance package and the bonuses. The Liberals say they received a letter from Liepert stating, "Our government offers clear, positive alternatives to all Albertans. I believe these choices offered may provide you with some insight as to why we continue to be successful."
"Whenever I ask questions you just get cheek back from him, you never get a straight answer," said MacDonald.
With files from CTV's Kevin Armstrong
NOW; "Who is Patricia (or)Patty (or)Paddy Meade,
and why should we care?" you might ask. She has been lurking around the Alberta PC backrooms and getting some pretty choice appointments. It kinda makes one wonder what her true talents are.
From the Alberta Government site;
https://hermis.alberta.ca/paa/Details.aspx?st=%22Transportation%22&cp=90&ReturnUrl=%2Fpaa%2FSearch.aspx%3Fst%3D%2522Transportation%2522%26cp%3D90&dv=True&DeptID=1&ObjectID=GR0042
Patricia Meade, Deputy Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: 2000-2004
Paddy Meade, Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services in the Northwest Territories: 2009-2011
A little research goes a long way, and I could probably dedicate a whole post about Ms. Meade indulging herself in public troughs, but frankly, when I started looking her up I didn't expect to find a pattern of taking government appointments, then leaving soon after. And no doubt, with fine severance packages.
Vern Redel
Sunday, March 14, 2010
"people who support pay equity for women are communists"
ERCB Approves Construction of Sour Gas Plant
http://nisto.com/cree/Lubicon/1995/19950501a.html
Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
Little Buffalo Lake, Alberta
Phone: 403-629-3945
Fax: 403-629-3939
Mailing address:
3536 - 106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6J 1A4
Phone: 403-436-5652
Fax: 403-437-0719
May 01, 1995
On February 23rd the Provincial agency charged with supposedly regulating the energy industry in Alberta -- the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) -- reaffirmed its earlier decision to approve construction and operation of Unocal's sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake. The new Unocal sour gas processing plant is located less than 3 kms. from the area where the Lubicons have been seeking for over 50 years to establish a Lubicon reserve. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a "news release" and "executive summary" on the ERCB decision which, among other things, incorrectly states that the Unocal plant is located "about 4 kilometers" from the proposed Lubicon reserve. (A copy of the full 28 page ERCB decision plus attachments can be obtained by contacting the new Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) at the address indicated on the back page of the attached "news release". [Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Information Services, Main Floor, Energy Resources Bldg., 640 Fifth Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3G4, (403) 297-8190])
Although informed of Lubicon opposition to the Unocal sour gas processing plant before commencement of plant construction, the ERCB didn't decide to reconsider its earlier approval of the plant until after the plant had already been built -- significantly biasing the eventual decision. Similarly reaffirmation of its earlier decision was then announced after the ERCB had already been amalgamated into a new and even more political super Provincial "regulatory" agency called the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). In other words you can't complain to ERCB about its decision. Conveniently by the time the decision was issued the ERCB no longer existed.
The new AEUB was created in the midst of considerable controversy last fall when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein simultaneously dumped Deputy Premier Ken Kowalski from the Provincial Cabinet and appointed him head of the soon to be established AEUB. At the time Kowalski was arguably the second most powerful man in the Provincial government and was widely regarded to be reigning Provincial pork barrel king. One of Kowalski's claims to fame came from calling environmentalists "pot smoking anarchists". Another of Mr. Kowalski's claims to fame came from saying people who support pay equity for women are communists since, he explained, it "means everyone in society will get the same amount of money". Those are of course not normally the kind of credentials or public persona one would expect in the head of a supposedly "independent, non-partisan, quasi-judicial Provincial regulatory body".
Kowalski's appointment as head of the new AEUB predictably triggered widespread protest from opposition political parties and environmentalists. Not so predictable was criticism by the Calgary- based Alberta oil industry -- especially since Premier Klein is acutely attuned to the views of the Calgary-based Alberta oil industry and it's most improbable that he would have appointed Kowalski to head the new Provincial oil and gas "regulatory" super agency without first seeking and obtaining oil industry approval of the appointment. Oil industry criticism of the appointment was therefore likely an integral part of Kowalski's carefully orchestrated political assassination specifically intended to undercut Kowalski's considerable political support among Conservative back-benchers who predictably would be little inclined to challenge the views of the powerful Calgary-based oil industry.
Normally publicity-shy oil industry spokesmen came out of the woodwork and publicly charged that Kowalski's appointment threatened the ERCB's "worldwide reputation...(for)...competent and impartial regulation of the Province's energy resources". Phooey. That's a self-serving deception carefully fashioned and maintained by the Alberta government and the Calgary-based oil industry about an agency which essentially provides a facade of regulation and public sanction for just about anything the oil industry wants to do in Alberta. Before Kowalski's appointment was cynically used to discredit and knock him off politically the person considered to have an inside track on the job was man named Sherrold Moore. Mr. Moore is a close associate of Premier Klein, a bag man for the ruling Provincial Conservative Party and an ex-senior vice president of Amoco Canada Petroleum Company -- which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a major, multi-national oil company headquartered in Chicago called Amoco Corporation. At last notice Mr. Moore was still a member of the Amoco Board of Directors. The possibility of Mr. Moore's equally questionable appointment wasn't criticized by the Calgary-based oil industry but was heralded as being in the fine tradition of the supposedly "independent, non-partisan, quasi-judicial ERCB".
The Lubicons of course knew about all of these cosy relationships in advance and therefore didn't expect a fair and impartial hearing before the ERCB. What they did hope to achieve was full public disclosure of Unocal's slick dealing and vetting of the issues -- something which they only partially achieved due to a notable lack of media coverage. The concluding remarks of those attending the hearing made clear that they were not deceived by Unocal's elaborate efforts to convince people that Unocal had not deliberately misled the Lubicons. Unfortunately those not attending the hearing missed Unocal's enlightening explanation of why Unocal officials didn't mention sour gas in any of the written materials they gave the Lubicons because they were supposedly relying upon predictably disputed verbal communications. (One would have thought mention of sour gas would have snuck into the written materials at least once -- if only by accident.)
Why the media didn't cover the hearing is an interesting question. It was not for lack of interest on the part of the working press -- several of whom specifically asked to cover the hearing and were not allowed to do so.
The media situation in Alberta, historically always problematic, has taken an even more disturbing turn since the election of the media- wise Klein government. And not only with regard to coverage of the Lubicon issue but with regard to news coverage in Alberta generally - - the masterful job of publicly setting-up and discrediting the high- flying Kowalski in a brief ten day flurry of obviously planted media stories being only one case in point. Reporters sympathetic to the Provincial government are regularly fed pre-digested "inside" information which they use to promote both the government's agenda and their own careers. Reporters who've historically covered the Lubicon issue have been squeezed out, transferred to other beats or variously censored. The Calgary Herald, which in the past has provided good coverage of the Lubicon issue despite continuing howls of protest from powerful Calgary interests, has now made a policy decision not to cover anything north of a town in central Alberta called Red Deer -- even when the story involves a generic environmental issue like sour gas and a major Calgary-based company like Unocal. Taken together these things have resulted in a situation where reporters in Alberta essentially serving as conduits for government propaganda get the vast majority of newspaper space and air time -- to the point where almost nothing else is covered (and anything else which is covered is effectively buried and its significance lost or at least obscured.)
The ERCB hearing lasted 10 ten days over a three week period in November and December and was the scene of almost continuous high drama. A number of prominent personalities made submissions and gave evidence. Unocal was charged with defrauding and deceiving not only the Lubicons but also the ERCB.
Tension was high and sparks flew from the first day of the hearing when Unocal unsuccessfully tried to disqualify all intervenors but the Lubicons to the last day of the hearing when Unocal lawyer Brian O'Ferrell -- who is coincidentally a law partner of ex-Alberta Provincial Premier Peter Lougheed -- threatened that an adverse ERCB decision would "negatively affect the way Unocal views Alberta as a place to invest". The reaction of those attending the hearing to the evidence presented and to Unocal tactics at the hearing was made crystal clear during the last day of the hearing when speaker after speaker indicated that the more they saw and heard from Unocal the more they believed Lubicon charges of duplicity, deceit, fraud and deception.
The President of Unocal Canada Fritz Perschon attended the hearing throughout glad-handing anybody who'd listen to him -- very much like an eternally optimistic and endlessly persistent shoe salesman trying to sell "one size fits everybody" shoes to increasingly dubious customers. Mr. Perschon was supported by several other senior Unocal officials, an ex-senior Provincial government native affairs official hired by Unocal on contract, current senior Provincial government native affairs officials backing up Unocal lawyers and the ex-senior Provincial government official hired by Unocal on contract, an ex- Provincial government wildlife officer hired by Unocal on contract and representatives of a so-called environmental consulting firm hired by Unocal which is coincidentally partners with the Provincial government in a controversial toxic waste disposal plant where the Province guarantees the company a profit costing $25 million a year in public funds. (If there seems to be an inordinate amount of overlap between Unocal and the Alberta government it's because there's an inordinate amount of overlap between Unocal and the Alberta government. To paraphrase a comment made by satirist Lenny Bruce about the forces of good and evil in Chicago, in most places there's continual tension between the private and public sectors; in Alberta, it's nice, the oil companies and the Provincial government all get along and you can't tell the difference.)
The Lubicons including Chief Ominayak and his Council also attended the hearing throughout. They were supported by a variety of local, Provincial, national and international environmental organizations; by Indian Nations and organizations; by organized labour; by human rights organizations; by civil rights organizations; by aboriginal rights organizations; by church representatives; by concerned individuals; by the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review and by both Provincial opposition political parties.
Regarding Lubicon charges of fraud the ERCB concluded that there "was a misunderstanding between the parties in the discussion of this project prior to the issuance of the plant approval". That wasn't the evidence. The Lubicon evidence was that Unocal did not tell them about plans to build a sour gas processing plant. Unocal evidence was that Unocal did tell the Lubicons about plans to build a sour gas processing plant. That was the evidence. One party or the other is lying. There is no basis for a conclusion of "misunderstanding" based on the evidence.
The ERCB decision goes on to say "While there is some onus on the applicant (Unocal) to present the proposed development in a fair way there is also an obligation on the affected parties (the Lubicons) to make efforts to understand the implications of a project". It says "It is not evident that such efforts were made by the Lubicons in securing advice from those that may be in a position to provide it". The decision does not say how one exercises one's responsibility to "understand the implications of a project" which one has no way of knowing is being planned. Moreover the evidence is that the Lubicons did in fact seek advise "from those that may be in a position to provide it" immediately upon learning from others that Unocal was planning to build a sour gas processing plant -- they just weren't interested in hearing the views of people bought and paid for by Unocal to try and convince them that sour gas is good for children and other living things.
On the question of whether the Lubicons retain unceded aboriginal land rights over traditional Lubicon territory, and consequently whether the ERCB as an agency of the Alberta Provincial government legally had the right to approve construction of a sour gas processing plant on unceded Lubicon territory, the ERCB concluded both that "the Board...has no authority to enter into such issues" (as aboriginal land rights) and also that "The Board believes it has full statutory authority to regulate energy related activities on this disputed land and holds the view that the mineral and land surface leases were properly obtained by Unocal from the (Provincial) Crown". You can't have it both ways. By proclaiming that it has "full statutory authority to regulate energy related activities on this disputed land and...that the mineral and land surface leases were properly obtained by Unocal from the (Provincial) Crown", the ERCB -- a Provincial government "regulatory" agency which clearly "has no authority to enter into such issues" under Canadian law -- is effectively denying the existence of Lubicon land rights over the unceded traditional Lubicon territory and is forcibly asserting Provincial government jurisdiction over "this disputed land". (The question of course again becomes one of effective redress given that Lubicon experience with the Canadian courts is no different than Lubicon experience with the ERCB; i.e., judges who are ex-head oil company lawyers, judges who are ex-partners of head oil company lawyers on the case, judges who retire from the bench and are appointed to oil company boards and so on.)
Going beyond the issue of the Unocal sour gas processing plant the ERCB also decided to cancel a "notification agreement" negotiated between the Lubicons and the ERCB in 1986 after several serious disputes -- one of which involved Unocal. At that time the ERCB was taking the position that aboriginal land rights weren't an interest they needed to take into account. The Lubicons threatened to tie up ERCB approvals by taking the ERCB to court over interpretation of its very general mandate. In this context the ERCB agreed to ask companies to check with the Lubicons before making application to the ERCB and to hopefully obtain Lubicon agreement not to oppose an application to the ERCB.
The primary purpose of the 1986 "notification" agreement between the Lubicons and the ERCB was to protect particularly sensitive sites like burial grounds from resource exploitation activity. As long as the proposed project didn't threaten such a sensitive site, and the company agreed to respect Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns, the Lubicons typically agreed not to oppose an application by the company to the ERCB for approval of the project.
It was in the context of this "notification agreement" with the ERCB that Unocal first contacted the Lubicons to discuss expansion of their existing battery station. In retrospect it's clear that Unocal knew the Lubicons would never in hell agree to construction of a sour gas plant adjacent to the area where the Lubicons have been planning for over 50 years to establish their reserve. So Unocal officials misrepresented their plans to the Lubicons and deliberately created an ambiguous paper trail enabling them to tell the Lubicons that they were talking about expanding an existing oil battery station and to tell the ERCB that the Lubicons had agreed not to oppose a sour gas processing plant. (Unocal officials undoubtedly believed that they could build their sour gas plant at the site of the existing battery station and the Lubicons would be none the wiser. They might have pulled it off too had others with knowledge of their plans to build a sour gas processing plant not alerted the Lubicons.)
After Unocal got caught trying to slip their sour gas processing plant past the Lubicons they first tried to argue that they didn't need to obtain Lubicon agreement not to oppose their application to the ERCB because, they said, their plant was located outside of the 95 square mile proposed reserve area around Lubicon Lake and was therefore supposedly outside of the so-called ERCB "notification area". They knew better and were bluffing -- as is made clear from their original letter to the Lubicons on this matter which states explicitly "We have been advised by the Energy Resources Conservation Board that the consent of the Lubicon Lake Nation must be obtained in support of the referenced plant expansion". It was just that denying that they were required to consult with the Lubicons was the best they could do when they were first charged with not consulting the Lubicons. (It's also a typical Unocal bully boy tactic when challenged or questioned about anything.)
Told that their sour gas plant was well within a much larger 900 square mile ERCB "notification area" Unocal officials reacted indignantly that the "notification area" shouldn't be any bigger than the 95 square mile proposed reserve area. They then carried this argument into the hearing asking that the "notification area" be unilaterally defined by the ERCB to include only the 95 square mile proposed reserve area because, according to Unocal, the original agreement provided for a larger area only because nobody knew in 1986 how big an eventual Lubicon reserve would be or where it would be located. The ERCB adopted this Unocal argument holus-bolus and unilaterally redefined the so-called "notification area" as demanded by Unocal despite the fact that the original agreement had nothing at all to do with an eventual reserve area but rather with protecting particularly sensitive sites scattered throughout the traditional Lubicon territory like 19 burial grounds. (Redefining the "notification area" likely serves a bigger oil company/ERCB/AEUB/Provincial government purpose as well. Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for the huge U.S. utilities. It has therefore become an attractive natural resource to exploit -- after oil in the late 70s and timber in the mid-80s. There is apparently abundant natural gas in the unceded Lubicon territory. The natural gas in the immediate vicinity of Lubicon Lake is apparently sour gas. It's clear that the Lubicons will oppose a proliferation of sour gas plants ringing the area where they raise their children. By re- defining the size of the "notification area" the oil companies/ERCB/AEUB/Provincial government are largely relieving themselves of the negotiated requirement to give the Lubicons advance notice of their plans to exploit the sour gas resources in the immediate vicinity of Lubicon Lake. Needless to say effectively pushing things back to before the hard-won 1986 "notification agreement" -- especially at a time when it appears that the oil companies are gearing-up for another massive and particularly worrisome run at Lubicon natural resources -- doesn't bode well for the embattled and already seriously damaged Lubicon society.)
Regarding the impact of resource exploitation activity upon the traditional Lubicon society and way of life the ERCB decision says "The Board recognized there has been some social impacts brought about by industry, but it must also be cognizant of its responsibility to regulate the energy industry in the overall provincial public interest". What we're of course taking about here is a euphemistic way of referring to destruction of the traditional Lubicon economy and way of life resulting in what many knowledgable independent observers have concluded is genocide of the Lubicon people in the name of oil company profits and related Provincial government royalty payments.
The ERCB decision says "The Board concluded that the plant would have no undue impact on the people or the environment of the area" -- primarily because the plant has been built "adjacent to an existing oil battery site" and consequently would not disrupt anything that hasn't already been disrupted. This is an argument which the Lubicons have been hearing from the Provincial government and the oil companies for years. Basically the way the argument goes is don't worry about this project -- it's small and won't disturb very much. The argument for the next project is then that the area has already been disturbed by the first project and so on. Often the individual projects do seem relatively innocuous in the context of the relatively vast traditional Lubicon territory. However the cumulative impact of all of these projects has been devastating upon the traditional Lubicon economy and way of life to the point where the very survival of the Lubicon people as a distinct society is now seriously imperiled.
The ERCB decision says "The Board believes that considerable economic benefit could be gained and the social structure of the band stabilized if a measure of co-existence could be mediated" -- whatever the hell that means. All of the available evidence is that massive resource exploitation activity in the unceded traditional Lubicon territory is in fact tearing Lubicon society to pieces. At best the Unocal plant is expected to produce only one or perhaps two technical jobs -- neither of which any Lubicon would likely qualify for even if one were interested in working at a plant considered by most Lubicons to represent a deadly threat to the health and well- being of their children. As for a "so-called measure of co-existence being mediated" -- well that's what the notification agreement which the ERCB has now effectively cancelled was all about.
On the question of Lubicon health and environmental concerns the ERCB essentially discounts the evidence of the Lubicons and others living in the vicinity of existing sour gas plants as unscientific, undocumented and unsubstantiated choosing instead to rely on the self-serving charts, graphs and statistics produced by an environmental consulting firm hired by Unocal called Bovar-Concord. The ERCB decision describes Bovar-Concord stuff as "compelling evidence that this sour gas plant is no threat to any community". The Board makes no mention or comment about the well known fact that Bovar-Concord is a division of company called Bovar Inc., or that Bovar Inc. is a partner of the Alberta provincial government in ownership of a highly controversial toxic waste disposal plant, or that Bovar Inc. has a sweetheart deal with the Alberta Provincial government which guarantees it a profit on a plant which has lost money every year since its construction, or that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government has cost Alberta taxpayers $250 million in construction and operating costs since 1987, or that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government is currently costing $25 million a year in public funds, or that it is estimated that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government will cost Alberta taxpayers $800 million by the year 2008, or that the ubiquitous ex-Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed is a consultant to Bovar Inc., or that all of these relationships and vast sums of money raise a very real question about whether Bovar-Concord's shiny charts should be given more weight and credibility than the evidence of an otherwise disinterested Alberta dairy farmer whose cattle have sickened, died, had spontaneous abortions, delivered calves with birth defects and so on since construction of a sour gas processing plant in his area.
During the ERCB hearing, and as a result of the controversy generated by the hearing, a Catholic religious order with shares in Unocal called the School Sisters of St. Francis became concerned about Unocal's sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake and attempted to have a resolution asking Unocal management for information on the situation included on the agenda of Unocal's Annual Shareholders Meeting. Unocal management responded by asking for a meeting with the School Sisters to try and talk the School Sisters out of pursuing the matter at Unocal's AGM. The School Sisters agreed to a meeting but only if representatives of the Lubicons could also be involved. After some discussion a meeting was agreed in Little Buffalo on January 21st. Notes on that meeting are attached and are recommended reading for anyone seeking to understand the dispute between Unocal and the Lubicons.
After Sister Laurie Michelowski of the School Sisters of St. Francis left Chicago on her way to Little Buffalo for the January 21st meeting Unocal management challenged the School Sisters resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sister Michelowski was not informed about the Unocal challenge until after the January 21st meeting. Normally such meetings are held to discuss proposed resolutions and the School Sisters don't agree to meet if a challenge has already been filed. Typical Unocal tactics.
The School Sisters subsequently successfully argued their resolution with the Securities Exchange Commission and won the right to have it included on the proxy statement provided to all Unocal shareholders. Unocal responded by moving the AGM from Los Angeles where concerned environmental groups were gearing-up to lobby Unocal shareholders to Houston, Texas, where there are fewer environmentalists to worry about.
In a replay of rushing construction of the plant to completion before the ERCB hearing, Unocal put its new sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake into operation in mid-April -- effectively preempting prior shareholder consideration of the matter. Putting the plant into operation was accompanied by a show of force by the RCMP in the Lubicon area presumably intended to let Lubicon parents know that there's nothing they can do to protect their children from the feared consequences of Unocal's sour gas processing plant. How the Lubicons will respond to this RCMP-delivered message and the fact that the plant has now been put into operation isn't yet known.
The Unocal AGM is scheduled for Houston on May 22nd. Letters sent to the Alberta Provincial government protesting the ERCB decision will only elicit a form response indicating that the AEUB/ERCB is "an independent, quasi-judicial body" and that it would therefore be "inappropriate for the Alberta Government to attempt to interfere with the recent decision of the AEUB to approve the Unocal plant". Letters to Unocal protesting operation of the plant will only elicit a form response summarizing the ERCB decision and expressing willingness to work with the Lubicons "if allowed to do so by Chief Ominayak". Concerned people should therefore write to the School Sisters of St. Francis letting them know that people across Canada and around the world oppose the operation of Unocal's sour gas processing plant at its current location, are monitoring the situation, are monitoring how Unocal shareholders respond to the situation and are prepared to participate in a boycott of Unocal products if the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake isn't shut down.
Having Unocal shareholders decide that operation of the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake is a bad idea is the easy way to do it. If Unocal shuts down the plant other oil companies will think twice about moving into the controversial Lubicon territory at least over Lubicon objections this fall. If the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake continues to operate over Lubicon protests it's likely that the other oil companies will conclude that they can basically do what they please in the Lubicon territory without concern for adverse Lubicon reaction.
The mailing address for the School Sisters of St. Francis is:
Sister Laurie Michalowski, SSSF
Chair, SSSF Corporate Responsibility Committee
4127 N. Central Park
Chicago, Illinois USA 60618
Fax: 312-463-6806
http://nisto.com/cree/Lubicon/1995/19950501a.html
Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
Little Buffalo Lake, Alberta
Phone: 403-629-3945
Fax: 403-629-3939
Mailing address:
3536 - 106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta T6J 1A4
Phone: 403-436-5652
Fax: 403-437-0719
May 01, 1995
On February 23rd the Provincial agency charged with supposedly regulating the energy industry in Alberta -- the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) -- reaffirmed its earlier decision to approve construction and operation of Unocal's sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake. The new Unocal sour gas processing plant is located less than 3 kms. from the area where the Lubicons have been seeking for over 50 years to establish a Lubicon reserve. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a "news release" and "executive summary" on the ERCB decision which, among other things, incorrectly states that the Unocal plant is located "about 4 kilometers" from the proposed Lubicon reserve. (A copy of the full 28 page ERCB decision plus attachments can be obtained by contacting the new Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) at the address indicated on the back page of the attached "news release". [Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Information Services, Main Floor, Energy Resources Bldg., 640 Fifth Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 3G4, (403) 297-8190])
Although informed of Lubicon opposition to the Unocal sour gas processing plant before commencement of plant construction, the ERCB didn't decide to reconsider its earlier approval of the plant until after the plant had already been built -- significantly biasing the eventual decision. Similarly reaffirmation of its earlier decision was then announced after the ERCB had already been amalgamated into a new and even more political super Provincial "regulatory" agency called the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB). In other words you can't complain to ERCB about its decision. Conveniently by the time the decision was issued the ERCB no longer existed.
The new AEUB was created in the midst of considerable controversy last fall when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein simultaneously dumped Deputy Premier Ken Kowalski from the Provincial Cabinet and appointed him head of the soon to be established AEUB. At the time Kowalski was arguably the second most powerful man in the Provincial government and was widely regarded to be reigning Provincial pork barrel king. One of Kowalski's claims to fame came from calling environmentalists "pot smoking anarchists". Another of Mr. Kowalski's claims to fame came from saying people who support pay equity for women are communists since, he explained, it "means everyone in society will get the same amount of money". Those are of course not normally the kind of credentials or public persona one would expect in the head of a supposedly "independent, non-partisan, quasi-judicial Provincial regulatory body".
Kowalski's appointment as head of the new AEUB predictably triggered widespread protest from opposition political parties and environmentalists. Not so predictable was criticism by the Calgary- based Alberta oil industry -- especially since Premier Klein is acutely attuned to the views of the Calgary-based Alberta oil industry and it's most improbable that he would have appointed Kowalski to head the new Provincial oil and gas "regulatory" super agency without first seeking and obtaining oil industry approval of the appointment. Oil industry criticism of the appointment was therefore likely an integral part of Kowalski's carefully orchestrated political assassination specifically intended to undercut Kowalski's considerable political support among Conservative back-benchers who predictably would be little inclined to challenge the views of the powerful Calgary-based oil industry.
Normally publicity-shy oil industry spokesmen came out of the woodwork and publicly charged that Kowalski's appointment threatened the ERCB's "worldwide reputation...(for)...competent and impartial regulation of the Province's energy resources". Phooey. That's a self-serving deception carefully fashioned and maintained by the Alberta government and the Calgary-based oil industry about an agency which essentially provides a facade of regulation and public sanction for just about anything the oil industry wants to do in Alberta. Before Kowalski's appointment was cynically used to discredit and knock him off politically the person considered to have an inside track on the job was man named Sherrold Moore. Mr. Moore is a close associate of Premier Klein, a bag man for the ruling Provincial Conservative Party and an ex-senior vice president of Amoco Canada Petroleum Company -- which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a major, multi-national oil company headquartered in Chicago called Amoco Corporation. At last notice Mr. Moore was still a member of the Amoco Board of Directors. The possibility of Mr. Moore's equally questionable appointment wasn't criticized by the Calgary-based oil industry but was heralded as being in the fine tradition of the supposedly "independent, non-partisan, quasi-judicial ERCB".
The Lubicons of course knew about all of these cosy relationships in advance and therefore didn't expect a fair and impartial hearing before the ERCB. What they did hope to achieve was full public disclosure of Unocal's slick dealing and vetting of the issues -- something which they only partially achieved due to a notable lack of media coverage. The concluding remarks of those attending the hearing made clear that they were not deceived by Unocal's elaborate efforts to convince people that Unocal had not deliberately misled the Lubicons. Unfortunately those not attending the hearing missed Unocal's enlightening explanation of why Unocal officials didn't mention sour gas in any of the written materials they gave the Lubicons because they were supposedly relying upon predictably disputed verbal communications. (One would have thought mention of sour gas would have snuck into the written materials at least once -- if only by accident.)
Why the media didn't cover the hearing is an interesting question. It was not for lack of interest on the part of the working press -- several of whom specifically asked to cover the hearing and were not allowed to do so.
The media situation in Alberta, historically always problematic, has taken an even more disturbing turn since the election of the media- wise Klein government. And not only with regard to coverage of the Lubicon issue but with regard to news coverage in Alberta generally - - the masterful job of publicly setting-up and discrediting the high- flying Kowalski in a brief ten day flurry of obviously planted media stories being only one case in point. Reporters sympathetic to the Provincial government are regularly fed pre-digested "inside" information which they use to promote both the government's agenda and their own careers. Reporters who've historically covered the Lubicon issue have been squeezed out, transferred to other beats or variously censored. The Calgary Herald, which in the past has provided good coverage of the Lubicon issue despite continuing howls of protest from powerful Calgary interests, has now made a policy decision not to cover anything north of a town in central Alberta called Red Deer -- even when the story involves a generic environmental issue like sour gas and a major Calgary-based company like Unocal. Taken together these things have resulted in a situation where reporters in Alberta essentially serving as conduits for government propaganda get the vast majority of newspaper space and air time -- to the point where almost nothing else is covered (and anything else which is covered is effectively buried and its significance lost or at least obscured.)
The ERCB hearing lasted 10 ten days over a three week period in November and December and was the scene of almost continuous high drama. A number of prominent personalities made submissions and gave evidence. Unocal was charged with defrauding and deceiving not only the Lubicons but also the ERCB.
Tension was high and sparks flew from the first day of the hearing when Unocal unsuccessfully tried to disqualify all intervenors but the Lubicons to the last day of the hearing when Unocal lawyer Brian O'Ferrell -- who is coincidentally a law partner of ex-Alberta Provincial Premier Peter Lougheed -- threatened that an adverse ERCB decision would "negatively affect the way Unocal views Alberta as a place to invest". The reaction of those attending the hearing to the evidence presented and to Unocal tactics at the hearing was made crystal clear during the last day of the hearing when speaker after speaker indicated that the more they saw and heard from Unocal the more they believed Lubicon charges of duplicity, deceit, fraud and deception.
The President of Unocal Canada Fritz Perschon attended the hearing throughout glad-handing anybody who'd listen to him -- very much like an eternally optimistic and endlessly persistent shoe salesman trying to sell "one size fits everybody" shoes to increasingly dubious customers. Mr. Perschon was supported by several other senior Unocal officials, an ex-senior Provincial government native affairs official hired by Unocal on contract, current senior Provincial government native affairs officials backing up Unocal lawyers and the ex-senior Provincial government official hired by Unocal on contract, an ex- Provincial government wildlife officer hired by Unocal on contract and representatives of a so-called environmental consulting firm hired by Unocal which is coincidentally partners with the Provincial government in a controversial toxic waste disposal plant where the Province guarantees the company a profit costing $25 million a year in public funds. (If there seems to be an inordinate amount of overlap between Unocal and the Alberta government it's because there's an inordinate amount of overlap between Unocal and the Alberta government. To paraphrase a comment made by satirist Lenny Bruce about the forces of good and evil in Chicago, in most places there's continual tension between the private and public sectors; in Alberta, it's nice, the oil companies and the Provincial government all get along and you can't tell the difference.)
The Lubicons including Chief Ominayak and his Council also attended the hearing throughout. They were supported by a variety of local, Provincial, national and international environmental organizations; by Indian Nations and organizations; by organized labour; by human rights organizations; by civil rights organizations; by aboriginal rights organizations; by church representatives; by concerned individuals; by the Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review and by both Provincial opposition political parties.
Regarding Lubicon charges of fraud the ERCB concluded that there "was a misunderstanding between the parties in the discussion of this project prior to the issuance of the plant approval". That wasn't the evidence. The Lubicon evidence was that Unocal did not tell them about plans to build a sour gas processing plant. Unocal evidence was that Unocal did tell the Lubicons about plans to build a sour gas processing plant. That was the evidence. One party or the other is lying. There is no basis for a conclusion of "misunderstanding" based on the evidence.
The ERCB decision goes on to say "While there is some onus on the applicant (Unocal) to present the proposed development in a fair way there is also an obligation on the affected parties (the Lubicons) to make efforts to understand the implications of a project". It says "It is not evident that such efforts were made by the Lubicons in securing advice from those that may be in a position to provide it". The decision does not say how one exercises one's responsibility to "understand the implications of a project" which one has no way of knowing is being planned. Moreover the evidence is that the Lubicons did in fact seek advise "from those that may be in a position to provide it" immediately upon learning from others that Unocal was planning to build a sour gas processing plant -- they just weren't interested in hearing the views of people bought and paid for by Unocal to try and convince them that sour gas is good for children and other living things.
On the question of whether the Lubicons retain unceded aboriginal land rights over traditional Lubicon territory, and consequently whether the ERCB as an agency of the Alberta Provincial government legally had the right to approve construction of a sour gas processing plant on unceded Lubicon territory, the ERCB concluded both that "the Board...has no authority to enter into such issues" (as aboriginal land rights) and also that "The Board believes it has full statutory authority to regulate energy related activities on this disputed land and holds the view that the mineral and land surface leases were properly obtained by Unocal from the (Provincial) Crown". You can't have it both ways. By proclaiming that it has "full statutory authority to regulate energy related activities on this disputed land and...that the mineral and land surface leases were properly obtained by Unocal from the (Provincial) Crown", the ERCB -- a Provincial government "regulatory" agency which clearly "has no authority to enter into such issues" under Canadian law -- is effectively denying the existence of Lubicon land rights over the unceded traditional Lubicon territory and is forcibly asserting Provincial government jurisdiction over "this disputed land". (The question of course again becomes one of effective redress given that Lubicon experience with the Canadian courts is no different than Lubicon experience with the ERCB; i.e., judges who are ex-head oil company lawyers, judges who are ex-partners of head oil company lawyers on the case, judges who retire from the bench and are appointed to oil company boards and so on.)
Going beyond the issue of the Unocal sour gas processing plant the ERCB also decided to cancel a "notification agreement" negotiated between the Lubicons and the ERCB in 1986 after several serious disputes -- one of which involved Unocal. At that time the ERCB was taking the position that aboriginal land rights weren't an interest they needed to take into account. The Lubicons threatened to tie up ERCB approvals by taking the ERCB to court over interpretation of its very general mandate. In this context the ERCB agreed to ask companies to check with the Lubicons before making application to the ERCB and to hopefully obtain Lubicon agreement not to oppose an application to the ERCB.
The primary purpose of the 1986 "notification" agreement between the Lubicons and the ERCB was to protect particularly sensitive sites like burial grounds from resource exploitation activity. As long as the proposed project didn't threaten such a sensitive site, and the company agreed to respect Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns, the Lubicons typically agreed not to oppose an application by the company to the ERCB for approval of the project.
It was in the context of this "notification agreement" with the ERCB that Unocal first contacted the Lubicons to discuss expansion of their existing battery station. In retrospect it's clear that Unocal knew the Lubicons would never in hell agree to construction of a sour gas plant adjacent to the area where the Lubicons have been planning for over 50 years to establish their reserve. So Unocal officials misrepresented their plans to the Lubicons and deliberately created an ambiguous paper trail enabling them to tell the Lubicons that they were talking about expanding an existing oil battery station and to tell the ERCB that the Lubicons had agreed not to oppose a sour gas processing plant. (Unocal officials undoubtedly believed that they could build their sour gas plant at the site of the existing battery station and the Lubicons would be none the wiser. They might have pulled it off too had others with knowledge of their plans to build a sour gas processing plant not alerted the Lubicons.)
After Unocal got caught trying to slip their sour gas processing plant past the Lubicons they first tried to argue that they didn't need to obtain Lubicon agreement not to oppose their application to the ERCB because, they said, their plant was located outside of the 95 square mile proposed reserve area around Lubicon Lake and was therefore supposedly outside of the so-called ERCB "notification area". They knew better and were bluffing -- as is made clear from their original letter to the Lubicons on this matter which states explicitly "We have been advised by the Energy Resources Conservation Board that the consent of the Lubicon Lake Nation must be obtained in support of the referenced plant expansion". It was just that denying that they were required to consult with the Lubicons was the best they could do when they were first charged with not consulting the Lubicons. (It's also a typical Unocal bully boy tactic when challenged or questioned about anything.)
Told that their sour gas plant was well within a much larger 900 square mile ERCB "notification area" Unocal officials reacted indignantly that the "notification area" shouldn't be any bigger than the 95 square mile proposed reserve area. They then carried this argument into the hearing asking that the "notification area" be unilaterally defined by the ERCB to include only the 95 square mile proposed reserve area because, according to Unocal, the original agreement provided for a larger area only because nobody knew in 1986 how big an eventual Lubicon reserve would be or where it would be located. The ERCB adopted this Unocal argument holus-bolus and unilaterally redefined the so-called "notification area" as demanded by Unocal despite the fact that the original agreement had nothing at all to do with an eventual reserve area but rather with protecting particularly sensitive sites scattered throughout the traditional Lubicon territory like 19 burial grounds. (Redefining the "notification area" likely serves a bigger oil company/ERCB/AEUB/Provincial government purpose as well. Natural gas has become the fuel of choice for the huge U.S. utilities. It has therefore become an attractive natural resource to exploit -- after oil in the late 70s and timber in the mid-80s. There is apparently abundant natural gas in the unceded Lubicon territory. The natural gas in the immediate vicinity of Lubicon Lake is apparently sour gas. It's clear that the Lubicons will oppose a proliferation of sour gas plants ringing the area where they raise their children. By re- defining the size of the "notification area" the oil companies/ERCB/AEUB/Provincial government are largely relieving themselves of the negotiated requirement to give the Lubicons advance notice of their plans to exploit the sour gas resources in the immediate vicinity of Lubicon Lake. Needless to say effectively pushing things back to before the hard-won 1986 "notification agreement" -- especially at a time when it appears that the oil companies are gearing-up for another massive and particularly worrisome run at Lubicon natural resources -- doesn't bode well for the embattled and already seriously damaged Lubicon society.)
Regarding the impact of resource exploitation activity upon the traditional Lubicon society and way of life the ERCB decision says "The Board recognized there has been some social impacts brought about by industry, but it must also be cognizant of its responsibility to regulate the energy industry in the overall provincial public interest". What we're of course taking about here is a euphemistic way of referring to destruction of the traditional Lubicon economy and way of life resulting in what many knowledgable independent observers have concluded is genocide of the Lubicon people in the name of oil company profits and related Provincial government royalty payments.
The ERCB decision says "The Board concluded that the plant would have no undue impact on the people or the environment of the area" -- primarily because the plant has been built "adjacent to an existing oil battery site" and consequently would not disrupt anything that hasn't already been disrupted. This is an argument which the Lubicons have been hearing from the Provincial government and the oil companies for years. Basically the way the argument goes is don't worry about this project -- it's small and won't disturb very much. The argument for the next project is then that the area has already been disturbed by the first project and so on. Often the individual projects do seem relatively innocuous in the context of the relatively vast traditional Lubicon territory. However the cumulative impact of all of these projects has been devastating upon the traditional Lubicon economy and way of life to the point where the very survival of the Lubicon people as a distinct society is now seriously imperiled.
The ERCB decision says "The Board believes that considerable economic benefit could be gained and the social structure of the band stabilized if a measure of co-existence could be mediated" -- whatever the hell that means. All of the available evidence is that massive resource exploitation activity in the unceded traditional Lubicon territory is in fact tearing Lubicon society to pieces. At best the Unocal plant is expected to produce only one or perhaps two technical jobs -- neither of which any Lubicon would likely qualify for even if one were interested in working at a plant considered by most Lubicons to represent a deadly threat to the health and well- being of their children. As for a "so-called measure of co-existence being mediated" -- well that's what the notification agreement which the ERCB has now effectively cancelled was all about.
On the question of Lubicon health and environmental concerns the ERCB essentially discounts the evidence of the Lubicons and others living in the vicinity of existing sour gas plants as unscientific, undocumented and unsubstantiated choosing instead to rely on the self-serving charts, graphs and statistics produced by an environmental consulting firm hired by Unocal called Bovar-Concord. The ERCB decision describes Bovar-Concord stuff as "compelling evidence that this sour gas plant is no threat to any community". The Board makes no mention or comment about the well known fact that Bovar-Concord is a division of company called Bovar Inc., or that Bovar Inc. is a partner of the Alberta provincial government in ownership of a highly controversial toxic waste disposal plant, or that Bovar Inc. has a sweetheart deal with the Alberta Provincial government which guarantees it a profit on a plant which has lost money every year since its construction, or that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government has cost Alberta taxpayers $250 million in construction and operating costs since 1987, or that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government is currently costing $25 million a year in public funds, or that it is estimated that this sweetheart deal between Bovar Inc. and the Alberta government will cost Alberta taxpayers $800 million by the year 2008, or that the ubiquitous ex-Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed is a consultant to Bovar Inc., or that all of these relationships and vast sums of money raise a very real question about whether Bovar-Concord's shiny charts should be given more weight and credibility than the evidence of an otherwise disinterested Alberta dairy farmer whose cattle have sickened, died, had spontaneous abortions, delivered calves with birth defects and so on since construction of a sour gas processing plant in his area.
During the ERCB hearing, and as a result of the controversy generated by the hearing, a Catholic religious order with shares in Unocal called the School Sisters of St. Francis became concerned about Unocal's sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake and attempted to have a resolution asking Unocal management for information on the situation included on the agenda of Unocal's Annual Shareholders Meeting. Unocal management responded by asking for a meeting with the School Sisters to try and talk the School Sisters out of pursuing the matter at Unocal's AGM. The School Sisters agreed to a meeting but only if representatives of the Lubicons could also be involved. After some discussion a meeting was agreed in Little Buffalo on January 21st. Notes on that meeting are attached and are recommended reading for anyone seeking to understand the dispute between Unocal and the Lubicons.
After Sister Laurie Michelowski of the School Sisters of St. Francis left Chicago on her way to Little Buffalo for the January 21st meeting Unocal management challenged the School Sisters resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sister Michelowski was not informed about the Unocal challenge until after the January 21st meeting. Normally such meetings are held to discuss proposed resolutions and the School Sisters don't agree to meet if a challenge has already been filed. Typical Unocal tactics.
The School Sisters subsequently successfully argued their resolution with the Securities Exchange Commission and won the right to have it included on the proxy statement provided to all Unocal shareholders. Unocal responded by moving the AGM from Los Angeles where concerned environmental groups were gearing-up to lobby Unocal shareholders to Houston, Texas, where there are fewer environmentalists to worry about.
In a replay of rushing construction of the plant to completion before the ERCB hearing, Unocal put its new sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake into operation in mid-April -- effectively preempting prior shareholder consideration of the matter. Putting the plant into operation was accompanied by a show of force by the RCMP in the Lubicon area presumably intended to let Lubicon parents know that there's nothing they can do to protect their children from the feared consequences of Unocal's sour gas processing plant. How the Lubicons will respond to this RCMP-delivered message and the fact that the plant has now been put into operation isn't yet known.
The Unocal AGM is scheduled for Houston on May 22nd. Letters sent to the Alberta Provincial government protesting the ERCB decision will only elicit a form response indicating that the AEUB/ERCB is "an independent, quasi-judicial body" and that it would therefore be "inappropriate for the Alberta Government to attempt to interfere with the recent decision of the AEUB to approve the Unocal plant". Letters to Unocal protesting operation of the plant will only elicit a form response summarizing the ERCB decision and expressing willingness to work with the Lubicons "if allowed to do so by Chief Ominayak". Concerned people should therefore write to the School Sisters of St. Francis letting them know that people across Canada and around the world oppose the operation of Unocal's sour gas processing plant at its current location, are monitoring the situation, are monitoring how Unocal shareholders respond to the situation and are prepared to participate in a boycott of Unocal products if the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake isn't shut down.
Having Unocal shareholders decide that operation of the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake is a bad idea is the easy way to do it. If Unocal shuts down the plant other oil companies will think twice about moving into the controversial Lubicon territory at least over Lubicon objections this fall. If the Unocal sour gas processing plant at Lubicon Lake continues to operate over Lubicon protests it's likely that the other oil companies will conclude that they can basically do what they please in the Lubicon territory without concern for adverse Lubicon reaction.
The mailing address for the School Sisters of St. Francis is:
Sister Laurie Michalowski, SSSF
Chair, SSSF Corporate Responsibility Committee
4127 N. Central Park
Chicago, Illinois USA 60618
Fax: 312-463-6806
Comparing the Alberta Heritage Fund to Alaska’s Permanent Fund
The following information was provided by John Carpay, Alberta Director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Let’s compare the Alberta Heritage Fund to Alaska’s Permanent Fund
Alaskans pay no sales or income tax. And that's not all. Since 1982, Alaskans are paid annual dividends based on the state's oil wealth. In 2000, a cheque for $1963.68 (US) was paid out to each man, woman and child in Alaska - tax free. How do they do it? Alaska started its Permanent Fund in 1976 to provide future generations with income for when the state would run out of oil. Alaskan law requires at least 50% of oil royalties to go into the Fund, which is now worth over $27 billion US, or roughly $40 billion Canadian. The value of the Fund's assets has never been eroded by inflation, because each year the Fund reinvests a portion of its earnings back into principal. This "inflation-proofing" is required by Alaskan law. The Fund's investment strategies are also established by law, not by the government of the day. The Fund is not controlled by the Alaskan government. Instead, it is managed as a separate trust by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, an agency at arm's length from the government. Politicians have no access to the Fund, or discretion over the annual income it produces.Changes to laws governing the Fund require the approval of Alaskans in a state-wide referendum. Alaskans are protected from the severe and unpredictable changes in oil prices. And when Alaska runs out of oil, the Fund will continue producing income for future generations. Like it's Alaskan counterpart, Alberta's Heritage Fund was also started in 1976, as a means to "save for a rainy day." Although Alberta has five times as many people as Alaska, the Heritage Fund is worth $12.3 billion, in contrast to Alaska's $40 billion. The Heritage Fund's annual income (approximately $1 billion) goes into the government's general revenues, for education, infrastructure and health care. The Heritage Fund is managed by the Provincial Treasurer. The government of the day has discretion to spend portions of the Fund's principal. Alberta's laws governing the Fund can be changed by politicians at any time, without obtaining the approval of Albertans in a referendum. Unlike mandatory "inflation-proofing" in Alaska, there is no absolute requirement in Alberta that a portion of the Fund's earnings be returned to principal. As a result, the Fund in real terms is worth less today than in 1987. Over the years, politicians have spent Heritage Fund income on projects and Crown corporations in the name of "economic diversification," according to a "government knows best" philosophy. Alberta's resources are owned by the people of Alberta, but the Fund is set up as a government asset, controlled by government. The Fund does not protect Albertans from sudden and extreme changes in oil prices. Its assets are not large enough to provide Albertans with substantial income for when our province runs out of oil and gas. But it's not too late to learn from the Alaskan experience and build Alberta's Heritage Fund into a source of stable revenue for future generations. According to University of Calgary economist Jean-Francois Wen, if government controls its spending and puts 50% of oil and gas revenues into the Fund, the Fund could grow to $55 billion by 2015. By then, the Fund would produce enough income to replace what the government takes from Albertans in personal income tax. Now that is a legacy worth building. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The above information was provided by John Carpay, Alberta Director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It can be viewed at their Web Site http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/ab/March2-01.htm
Let’s compare the Alberta Heritage Fund to Alaska’s Permanent Fund
Alaskans pay no sales or income tax. And that's not all. Since 1982, Alaskans are paid annual dividends based on the state's oil wealth. In 2000, a cheque for $1963.68 (US) was paid out to each man, woman and child in Alaska - tax free. How do they do it? Alaska started its Permanent Fund in 1976 to provide future generations with income for when the state would run out of oil. Alaskan law requires at least 50% of oil royalties to go into the Fund, which is now worth over $27 billion US, or roughly $40 billion Canadian. The value of the Fund's assets has never been eroded by inflation, because each year the Fund reinvests a portion of its earnings back into principal. This "inflation-proofing" is required by Alaskan law. The Fund's investment strategies are also established by law, not by the government of the day. The Fund is not controlled by the Alaskan government. Instead, it is managed as a separate trust by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, an agency at arm's length from the government. Politicians have no access to the Fund, or discretion over the annual income it produces.Changes to laws governing the Fund require the approval of Alaskans in a state-wide referendum. Alaskans are protected from the severe and unpredictable changes in oil prices. And when Alaska runs out of oil, the Fund will continue producing income for future generations. Like it's Alaskan counterpart, Alberta's Heritage Fund was also started in 1976, as a means to "save for a rainy day." Although Alberta has five times as many people as Alaska, the Heritage Fund is worth $12.3 billion, in contrast to Alaska's $40 billion. The Heritage Fund's annual income (approximately $1 billion) goes into the government's general revenues, for education, infrastructure and health care. The Heritage Fund is managed by the Provincial Treasurer. The government of the day has discretion to spend portions of the Fund's principal. Alberta's laws governing the Fund can be changed by politicians at any time, without obtaining the approval of Albertans in a referendum. Unlike mandatory "inflation-proofing" in Alaska, there is no absolute requirement in Alberta that a portion of the Fund's earnings be returned to principal. As a result, the Fund in real terms is worth less today than in 1987. Over the years, politicians have spent Heritage Fund income on projects and Crown corporations in the name of "economic diversification," according to a "government knows best" philosophy. Alberta's resources are owned by the people of Alberta, but the Fund is set up as a government asset, controlled by government. The Fund does not protect Albertans from sudden and extreme changes in oil prices. Its assets are not large enough to provide Albertans with substantial income for when our province runs out of oil and gas. But it's not too late to learn from the Alaskan experience and build Alberta's Heritage Fund into a source of stable revenue for future generations. According to University of Calgary economist Jean-Francois Wen, if government controls its spending and puts 50% of oil and gas revenues into the Fund, the Fund could grow to $55 billion by 2015. By then, the Fund would produce enough income to replace what the government takes from Albertans in personal income tax. Now that is a legacy worth building. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The above information was provided by John Carpay, Alberta Director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It can be viewed at their Web Site http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/ab/March2-01.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)