My Letter to My MP

originally posted June 6, 2018; updated and re-published Aug. 16, 2018.


Hello Mr. ...,

When the Trudeau-led Liberal party was elected to replace the Harper-led Conservatives, I was cautiously optimistic that Canada’s government would follow a new path in terms of priorities guiding decision-making.

My optimism was muted, however, by having observed how little changed in the U.S. after Mr. Obama and the Democrats replaced Mr. Bush and the Republicans.

So much for Hope and Change south of the border… Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen.. more of the same on foreign (imperial) policy; Guantanamo remained open; torturers were not prosecuted; illegal immigrants were shipped out; drone warfare was escalated; [the 3-letter (NSA, CIA, etc) surveillance spy state was expanded]; Assange and other whistleblowers were persecuted; [civil asset forfeiture by militarized police forces continued]; apparently not only were big banks took big to fail but big criminal bankers, ahem, benefactors, were too big to jail; Obamacare might as well have been Romneycare; Paris agreement was signed, and Keystone was delayed, but little real progress on the climate change front, excepting at the state and local levels…

One might have hoped things would have been different north of the border, but, alas, we have our own maple-leaf version of Barrack Obama.. lots of nice talk to disguise the lack of substance... to hide the prevailing/continuing neoliberal, as opposed to truly liberal, priorities.

While its nice that the Cabinet includes more diversity, and the post of Chief Science Officer was created, and the Ministry Environment was renamed to Environment and Climate Change… but that’s all just show business if it doesn’t/didn’t/hasn’t lead to fundamental change.

As Margaret Wente said

"pandering is what Mr. Trudeau does best. He wants to be more feminist than the feminists and more Bollywood than Shah Rukh Khan. The trouble is that he’s trying way too hard. So he just comes off as opportunistic and condescending.”

Unfortunately, pandering to big business, and in particular to big energy, will result in his kids and mine facing a disastrous future [not to put too fine a point on it, but a future as bleak as that envisioned by Cormac McCarthy in The Road... or in the film Interstellar, are entirely possible and something like it will be inevitable if we continue business-as-usual for too long].

How one can pretend to champion for the environment, and commit to work closely with First Nations communities and give them the respect they hadn’t received from previous governments, and to change the process for reviewing energy proposals.. and then not only to approve the 2 pipelines, but now even commit $4.5 billion of taxpayer money to the Kinder Morgan pipeline beggars belief.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, members of the Liberal government will rue the day they compromised their principles, and pursued the same-old-same-old objectives of pandering to big business rather than working towards a livable-future for humanity and leading the global effort to transition to a sustainable low-carbon decarbonized economy.

It will be dim comfort indeed to realize that we created a few thousand jobs and preserved thousands of others.. at the expense of 100s of millions if not and most likely billions dying because we refused to keep the oil in the ground.


Sincerely,

me


p.s. for further background, and as just a bare minimum starting point, I encourage reading:

https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2018/04/climate-links-april-2018.html

https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2018/03/climate-fantasy.html

https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2018/04/amazing-timing-ian-welsh-puts-pen-to.html

http://keepitintheground.org

To which, Mr. MP, or one of his staffers, responded:

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the purchase of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project.

Canada is a country where it is possible to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. The Trans Mountain Expansion Project was approved by both the federal government and the province of British Columbia, following the most rigorous process and environmental assessment in Canadian history. We are able to pursue this project confidently because we are upholding the trust placed in us to protect the environment and grow our economy.

The Government of Canada has reached an agreement with Kinder Morgan that will get the Trans Mountain Expansion built, guarantee the summer construction season, and protect up to 15,000 good, well-paying jobs – including 9,000 jobs in British Columbia. Additionally, the Government of Canada has reached an agreement with Kinder Morgan Inc. to purchase the company’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project and related pipeline and terminal assets for $4.5 billion.

This investment represents a fair price for Canadians and for shareholders of the company. The core assets required to build the Trans Mountain Expansion Project have significant commercial value, and this transaction represents a sound investment opportunity. This is an investment in Canada’s future. It is not however the intention of the Government of Canada to own this project for the long term, but construction can proceed under this agreement. We will ultimately work with investors to transfer the project and related assets to a new owner – or owners – in a way that ensures the project’s construction and operation will proceed in a manner that protects the public interest.

The decision to approve the TMX project was made after extensive and unprecedented consultations with Indigenous people.

Our detailed clean energy plan, including eliminating oil and gas subsidies and transitioning to renewable energy sources can be found at:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/plans-performance-reports/sustainable-development/2017-20/19995

I thank you for taking the time to bring your concerns to my attention.

To which I replied:

Dear Sir,

Thanks for responding and sending out the govt approved talking points.

Unfortunately, as I indicated in my original email, well-crafted words that sound good to the media and your voting base are no substitute for responsible actions that protect all Canadians and the public good rather than pursuing the prevailing neoliberal policies of pandering to the interests of big business and in particular big oil.

Never mind the risks to the local environment from potential spills from the pipelines.. never mind the risks to the ocean environment and aquatic wildlife from increased tanker traffic in the straits and around our coast.. never mind the refusal to adhere to the government’s promise to respect Indigenous rights and concerns… please consider how building new long-life infrastructure to export what is among the world’s dirtiest (and lowest EROEI) sources of energy is totally inconsistent with and contradictory to the government’s commitment to:

 "put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C,... aim to limit the increase to 1.5°C,... agreed on the need for global emissions to peak as soon as possible…"

You use impressive-sounding words like unprecedented.. what’s unprecedented is the disturbance inflicted on our planet’s atmosphere and climate systems by anthropogenic GHGs resulting in atmospheric CO2 of 410+ppm (and CO2e of ~500ppm). (prior to the last century and a half, human civilization has never experienced atmospheric CO2 > 280ppm.)


Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Earth System Research Lab, NOAA.


CO2 levels are at their highest in 800,000 years

see also: Bloomberg Carbon Clock


You use words like extensive.. what is truly extensive is the extent of our GhG emissions in Canada on a per capita basis:

6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters. World Resources Institute.

Ton CO2-equivalent per capita. EDGAR.

You (cavalierly) use words like rigorous… which reminds me of Vizzini’s use of the word inconceivable in the Princess Bride.

As Inigo Montoya responded: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


Humanity has a terrible history of risk assessment.

on the environmental side: megafauna extinction… collapse of Easter Island… PCBs and DDT… tobacco for a long time deemed safe and still widely [ab]used... East Coast cod fishery... ocean acidification and coral reef die-off... current mass extinction event...

or how about non-environmental, such as:

• Who would have thought in early 1914 that the war, predicted by many at the time that it would last only the matter of mere months, would have lasted 4.5 yrs and exacted a death toll in the 10s of millions
• Despite that experience, who would have thought in early 1939 that the war would last 6 years and cost over 50 million lives.
• How many in 1999 thought that the stock market could possibly fall 80% after the [nonexistent] tech bubble burst.
• Who in 2006 believed that housing prices in the U.S. could possibly fall at all (they "never do", after all)
• Even the so-called experts failed to realize in 2007 what was in the cards (Bernanke: subprime is contained?!) and that the economy was about to enter the worst recession since the Great Depression.
• Did the IMF or WEO or BoC or Fed foresee the collapse? did they foresee that zero-interest-rate policy would be necessary at all, much less for 6-10 years, just to keep the credit-bubble-asset-bubble-fuelled economy afloat (albeit at much subdued growth rates)?

Optimism bias, myopia, irrational exuberance, authority bias… our evolutionarily prescribed psychological predispositions commonly lead to massive failures of critical thinking

Belief bias, bandwagon effect, normalcy bias, confirmation bias, status quo bias, bounded rationality, cognitive dissonance.. these all play a part

See Ian Welsh's pertinent comments here.


Given these well-observed effects, what we should be employing is the precautionary principle.

Had a truly rigorous environmental assessment, including the impact of further GhG emissions sourced from Canadian oil sands on climate instability, been completed, and completed with adherence to the precautionary principle, we would not be building new pipelines.. we would be taxing the oil sands out of business and instead doing everything we can to promote, build and sustain a clean-energy based economy.

The fact that we should be doing this to ensure the inhabitability of our planet should be more-than-sufficient, but the fact that a New Deal-style-Green Deal would actually be the best thing for job-creation and a sustainable economy should make this a no-brainer.


See Bill McKibben's relevant views here.

And The Climate Mobilization Plan here.

And the One Degree War Plan by Jorgen Randers and Paul Gilding here.


I entreat you to research terms such as positive feedback effects, tipping points, (albedo, methane clathrate gun), ... even runaway climate change and the Venus syndrome

Consider the educated perspectives of climate scientists such as: Kevin Anderson, Alice Bows, Jason Box, Peter Wadhams, Andrew Glikson, Stefan Rahmstorf, Johan Rockstrom, Joachim Schellnhuber, Michael Oppenheimer, John Holdren, James Hansen, James Anderson, as well as other esteemed scientists, like James Lovelock, Stephen Hawking, Amory Lovins, etc

...as well as more of the material on the site I forwarded links to you from, including the feature reference articles such as here (https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2018/06/feature-reference-articles-11.html), before you blithely follow the company line. Following orders, adhering to the party line, was no absolution at Nuremberg, and the stakes are, sadly, and scarily, but frankly, much larger now.


As an easy introductory primer, please consider the essay below, as well as others referenced

here: https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2017/03/climate-links-03272017.html

here: https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2018/01/feature-reference-articles-10.html

here: https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2017/11/feature-reference-articles-9.html

here: https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2017/05/climate-scientists.html

and here: https://toolatefor2.blogspot.com/2016/04/scientist-quotes-1.html

which are just a tiny sample of the information that should be seriously considered before putting all life on this planet at risk with more short-sighted business-as-usual policies.


Sincerely,

me

The Globalization of Environmental Degradation, George Abert and Paul Craig Roberts. Feb. 13, 2017.

Figuratively speaking, a ginormous asteroid is hurtling to a cataclysmic rendezvous with earth, but we are not supposed to notice. The asteroid is the rising threat from environmental degradation. Evidence is accumulating that environmental degradation is becoming global.

We can either act responsibly by accepting the challenge or take refuge in denial and risk the consequences.

There is nothing new about climate change. It has been ongoing for as long as earth has had an atmosphere. Through change nature produced an atmosphere supportive of life. We know for a fact that human activities can have adverse impacts on the air, water, and land resources. If these impacts become global, as independent scientists believe, life on earth might be at risk.

We’re in a state of perpetual crisis

Moreover, environmental degradation can contribute to, and be worsened by, other changes that are not under our control. Presently humanity is challenged by three revolutions which collectively constitute a perpetual crisis: the technological revolution that is displacing humans in the production of goods and services, the volatility and instability of the global financial system, and environmental degradation. Our focus is on environmental degradation.

It’s a matter of balance

The weight of the atmosphere, at 14.7 PSI, has remained relatively constant throughout much of earth’s existence. What has varied is the makeup of the atmospheric gaseous mix. The mixes that existed prior to the current era would prove toxic to the contemporary biosphere. As the biosphere evolved over the hundreds of millions of years prior to the current era, the gaseous mix of the atmosphere and the biosphere came into perfect, or indeed as some might say, heavenly balance.

Indeed, our very existence as well as the existence of the biosphere depends on this balance. There is no question that human activities can affect this balance. Perhaps not enough that nature wouldn’t eventually be able to reset the balance, but perhaps enough to end civilization before nature could correct the disturbance. While some are cavalierly dismissive, others have concluded that things are already so irreversibly out of balance that civilization as we know it will cease before the middle of this century.

Easter Island is an example of death by environmental degradation on a local level. When the island was first settled, it was covered by a forest. Soil analysis suggests that the natural environment was reasonably diverse and, absent human settlement, resilient enough to recover from natural disturbances that included volcanic eruptions. The humans that settled on Easter Island thrived until the population degraded the environment to the point that it could not support the population.

Tree removal was one of the activities that proved detrimental to the island’s natural balance. As trees were removed, so too was the island’s natural diversity and its ability to support human habitation. Many have wondered what Easter Islanders were thinking as they cut down the last tree.

Environmental degradation’s role in the collapse of civilizations is well told in Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse. At least two pre-Columbian empires fell to sudden environmental collapse. Environmental degradation even contributed to Rome’s fall.

Throughout history, empires and civilizations have collapsed once they degrade the environment below its capacity to carry the human footprint imposed on the environment.

Global warming introduces a difference. In the past environmental destruction was local or regional. But what is now underway appears to be global. It can take a long time to unbalance the biosphere, but once the line is crossed, collapse can be rapid and irreversible.

Global Warming a hoax?

Humans and animals convert oxygen to carbon-dioxide, and trees and plants convert carbon-dioxide to oxygen. It’s a simple truth that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide is one of several greenhouse gases so named because they contribute to atmospheric warming. The atmospheric carbon-dioxide molecular count has steadily increased since measurements were first made decades ago. Analysis of ice cores extracted from glaciers and polar ice indicate that carbon dioxide levels were never as high as they are now for millions of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In addition, vast amounts of woodlands have been cleared thus reducing the biosphere’s capacity to absorb and process carbon-dioxide. For example, by 2030 it’s predicted that just 40% of the Amazon rain forest, itself a massive percentage of the biosphere, will remain.

But carbon-dioxide isn’t the only concern. In addition, vast amounts of methane, also known to be a potent greenhouse gas, are also being released into the atmosphere.

The oceans also contain gasses that if released into the atmosphere could prove toxic to the biosphere. The earth itself contains gasses, such as methane, which is routinely released into the atmosphere through coal and petroleum extraction operations. Animal farming adds more methane. Even larger amounts of methane are estimated to be locked up in polar ice. Based on recent measurements and observations, vast amounts of methane, estimated to be in excess of ten times as much as is presently contained in the atmosphere, are predicted to be released in a sudden volcanic-like eruption as the ice melts. A sudden release of methane could cause the atmosphere to rapidly heat to a temperature where most agricultural activities, except perhaps for hydroponic operations housed in controlled environments, would cease.

The Pace is Quickening

From one day to the next it is difficult to discern changes in the environment. Yet those of us old enough to have been around for decades know that the weather has changed. Predictions made by scientists are being met sooner than expected. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster and glaciers and polar ice are melting faster. The release of methane locked in arctic ice could quicken environmental change so that it is noticeable in real time.

The simple truth is that the atmospheric gaseous mix is changing and altering the natural balance. This is in addition to the historical kinds of local and regional environmental degradation associated with human activity. When humans destroy watersheds with deforestation, turn fertile lands into deserts, and pollute local sources of water, they can move on. But when the global environment degrades, there is no where else to go.

As climate changes, so does the geographical location for the best crop yields. Climate change has produced a new occupation: climatologists who predict for Wall Street investment bankers the best geographical locations for the highest crop yields.

Environmental changes, even a temporary one such as a multi-year drought, can cause turmoil in societies that result in deadly conflict. During the three years that preceded the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the Levant (Eastern Mediterranean) suffered from an extended drought. In Syria as water became more scarce, the government favored the most loyal elements of the population. Crop failures in the unfavored regions prompted a migration to the cities and produced political unrest. The US used this unrest to intervene against the Assad government which had alienated the US by pursuing an independent foreign policy.

The global spread of corporate monoculture agriculture and the global timber corporations’ exploitation of the remaining virgin forests are spreading environmental fragilities. On Easter Island the population declined into disappearance. For a thousand years after the Roman Empire collapsed the Italian peninsula was an environmental disaster with soils so depleted, agriculture was reduced to marginal subsistence farming barely sufficient to support a population a fraction of what it had been. Unlike our time, the Romans achieved environmental degradation without burning fossil fuels or fertilizing their fields with toxic petrochemicals and herbicides known to deplete soils to the point where continued land use is predicated on artificial fertilizers and ever larger applications of herbicides, the runoffs from which produce algae blooms and destroy marine life.

Today in locations where multinational agribusiness has replaced traditional farming, it can take years for soils to regain their natural fertility and for the societies to regain their economic balance from the imbalance that agricultural monoculture produces.

Environmental degradation can be destructive irrespective of global warming. Throughout history, humans have degraded their environments to the point that their societies failed or were weakened to the point that they were conquered in whole or part by invaders. However, global environmental failure can terminate life in general.

Environmental failure can result from ignorance, careless practices, and the short time horizon associated with profit maximization which encourages disposing of waste products directly into the environment where they damage, air, water, and land resources. When emissions alter the atmospheric balance, what has historically been local and regional damage becomes global.

In other words, human activities can put life in general at risk. This risk is too total to justify dismissing accumulated evidence as a hoax or as “a plot against capitalism.” We must assess the risk without being shouted down by material interests. There is no prospect of finding a solution to an unacknowledged risk.

Just as Easter Islanders did not understand the consequences for them of deforestation, today many in government do not acknowledge the risks of global degradation. President Trump has appointed a climate change skeptic as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is not enough for US Rep. Matt Gaetz who wants the EPA abolished. Is humanity now globally on the same path and in the same denial as led to the extinction of human life on Easter Island?

The answer to that question is “Yes”; because of decisions like on pipeline expansion, we are indeed on that same path.


As Ian Welsh said

"We are screwed, blued and tatooed. We are so fucked that we can’t see straight. The vast majority of people are in complete denial about the level of pain coming down the pike. The combination of climate change and ecological collapse is going to hit us like high speed train carrying nitroglycerine derailing in the middle of a oil refinery. 

The timing on this shit is unclear. I have seen coherently-argued cases that ecological collapse could happen soon. Heck, I’ve seen cases that say it, er, should have happened by now. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And combined with climate change and the way we have utterly fucked up our management of fresh water, this is going to lead to, in a reasonable best case scenario, hundreds of millions of deaths, and a billion or so refugees. [That's best case, remember]…."

or Geoff Chia

"Here's the rub: failure to address the underlying problems of human stupidity and greed will inevitably lead to a re-run of this same failed fossil fool experiment. …. As this century unfolds we will witness the die-off of billions of people through wars, resource depletion, droughts, floods, storms, crop failures, sea level rise (with no place to migrate to), pandemics and numerous other disasters."

If you believe these predictions unlikely, are you willing to bet the lives of your children and grandchildren on your suppositions/hopes… or are you willing to take out some disaster insurance?

Alternatively, even if some of these dire predictions truly are inevitable, that’s not to say we shouldn’t be trying to soften the blow, as opposed to digging the hole we find ourself in deeper and deeper.


Either way, act now. Keep the carbon in the ground!

Please!


related reading:
I was arrested for protesting against Canada's pipeline – and the battle is far from over. Elizabeth May, The Guardian. May 30, 2018.

There is nothing logical about the Kinder Morgan pipeline – especially not the decision to gut environmental laws for it

The twists and turns in the saga of the Kinder Morgan pipeline just took a turn for the seriously weird today, but the path has never been clear. 

The Alberta oil sands lie under thousands of square kilometers of boreal forest, wetland and muskeg. Bitumen is a viscous substance found in small concentrations amid the rock and soil. It is either mined out from huge open pits, or pumped out through in situ production, injecting hot water deep into the ground to loosen it. Either way, the resulting product is highly polluting, very expensive to produce and of low value. Bitumen is a solid. To be refined, bitumen must undergo costly upgrading. Bitumen, being both low value and expensive to produce, would never have been developed without government subsidies, with the lowest royalty rates in the world at 1% and massive federal subsidies of several billion/year. 

Before the 2008 global financial crisis, there were upgraders and refineries being planned. But when the recession hit, those investments, along with any new oil sands mines, retreated. When the economy recovered, oil sands expansion came back. But not the upgraders and refineries. Instead, for the first time, industry began to promote pipelines. Keystone was the first pipeline proposed to run north-south to take Canadian bitumen to other countries for processing.

Since bitumen is a solid, there is nothing logical about proposing to move it through a pipeline. Stirring in fossil fuel condensate (essentially naptha) creates a mixture sufficiently liquid to flow through a pipeline, without the expense of upgrading it to synthetic crude. The resulting mix of condensate (called diluent) and bitumen is called dilbit. And it is very challenging to clean up. The 2010 dilbit spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan was the first time regulators realized dilbit behaved very differently than conventional crude. The diluent is highly toxic and volatile. Diluent separated from bitumen and bitumen sank to the river bottom.

By the 2011 election, pipelines had become a political issue. Former prime minister, Conservative Stephen Harper, an Albertan who stood four-square for fossil fuel development, opposed any pipelines heading to the British Columbia coastline. Harper’s position was that Canada should not export bitumen to countries with lower environmental standards for refineries than Canada.

Within months of that election, difficulties in gaining US permits for Keystone led to an entirely new position. With Harper’s support, Enbridge proposed a pipeline to Kitimat on the BC coast. In 2013, Texas-based Kinder Morgan asked to build a second pipeline more or less along the lines of the Transmountain pipeline purchased from a Canadian company from Alberta to Burnaby, not far from Vancouver BC. Kinder Morgan’s pipeline expansion would be 100% dilbit for export. It would increase tanker traffic, loaded with dilbit, seven-fold.

To grease the gears for pipeline approval, Harper gutted environmental laws. The resulting environmental review of the Kinder Morgan expansion was the worst in Canadian history. No longer reviewed by our environmental assessment agency, the pipeline was before the National Energy Board. Intervenor rights, such as cross examination of industry witnesses, were eliminated. Many intervenors withdrew alleging the process was “rigged”. 

In the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau pledged that no project could be approved based on such an inadequate process. Trudeau promised evidence-based decisions, respect for indigenous rights, the end to fossil fuel subsidies and an aggressive climate plan. 

In 2016, the Liberals turned down the Enbridge pipeline due to the court ruling the previous government violated indigenous rights. Simultaneously, Trudeau announced support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline. In doing so, he violated election promises to respect indigenous rights, to base decisions on evidence, and to pursue real climate action. Having approved Kinder Morgan, he and his ministers became increasingly pro-pipeline.

Meanwhile fifteen different court cases were working through the federal court of appeal. The new BC government raised its concerns about the threat of a dilbit spill and to survival of the endangered southern resident killer whales. In March, I was one of the several hundred people arrested protesting against the Kinder Morgan pipeline. As opposition built in British Columbia, Trudeau insisted the pipeline was in the national interest and must be built. On 8 April, Kinder Morgan upped the ante and demanded the federal government remove the uncertainty created by all the court challenges to the project by 31 May.

Astonishingly, the government announced on 29 May that the government of Canada will buy the existing Transmountain pipeline. Canada will pay $4.5bn for those existing assets, valued by Kinder Morgan in 2007 at $550m . As well, the Trudeau administration says it will get the controversial expansion pipeline built. Kinder Morgan had pegged those costs at $7.4bn, and that is just the beginning of federal liabilities. With this, Trudeau’s election promise to end fossil fuel subsidies is violated in spectacular fashion.

We await the court decisions. This battle is a long way from over.

The Sinister Reason Canada Bought The Kinder Morgan Pipeline. Steve Hanley, Clean Technica. June 7, 2018.

CleanTechnica contributor Michael Ballard published a well researched analysis of the economics behind Canada’s decision this month to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion. He suggests the pipeline is intended to provide China with a reliable source of petroleum for its future needs and questions whether, with China’s increasing reliance on renewable energy, those needs will ever materialize. 

Say Hello To FIPA 

That’s a good question, but Bruce Livesey, writing in The Guardian, suggests the real reason may have little if anything to do with economics (the deal actually makes no economic sense for Canada) and everything to do with an obscure bit of legal mumbo jumbo called the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement or FIPA. 

Never heard of such a thing? You’re not alone. FIPA is what Canada calls a bilateral investment treaty. Such agreements are common in international business but virtually unknown to the general public. In effect, they transfer a piece of national sovereignty to a foreign corporation, which can then challenge public policies or community decisions that go against its financial interest. 

For instance, Livesay refers to an instance in which a Chinese insurance company launched a $2 billion arbitration claim against Belgium pursuant to the provisions of a foreign investment protection treaty. When the United States cancelled the XL Pipeline in 2016, Canada filed a $16 billion dollar claim for damages against the US under the terms of a FIPA that was included in the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Canada has paid $160 million to American corporations who say they suffered economic losses because of public policies enacted by federal, provincial, or local authorities. Canadian mining companies have sought millions in damages from developing nations who had the temerity to enact policies opposing mega projects they believed would harm their environments. 

The FIPA with China was signed by the Harper government in 2014. It allows Chinese energy companies to challenge local, provincial, and federal policies or laws that interfere with their “right” to make a profit from energy projects. So any environmental regulations, or halted pipelines, or First Nations land claims, could become the subject of lawsuits brought by Chinese corporate interests. The same applies to Canadian corporations who feel China has impeded their ability to make a profit. The agreement, which was never approved by Parliament, will remain in effect until 2045. 

Secret Awards 

Gus Van Harten, an international investment lawyer at Osgoode Hall law school in Toronto, tells The Guardian, “More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor’s lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know.” 

Livesey claims that Premier Justin Beiber Trudeau is “desperate to keep China happy. In 2016, his government began negotiating a free trade agreement with China. At the time, the Globe and Mail reported a senior Chinese official said such an agreement will require Canadian concessions on investment restrictions and a commitment to build an energy pipeline to the coast. Less than a year later, Trudeau approved the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Talks for the free trade agreement are ongoing.”

Justin Trudeau's risky gamble on the Trans Mountain pipeline. David Tindall, UBC, The Conversation. May 30, 2018.


For Marine Life, New Threats from a Fast-Tracked Canadian Pipeline. Jim Robbins, Yale360. Aug. 2, 2018.


Former Bank Of Canada Head: 'Pipeline Protesters May Be Killed...So Be It'. zerohedge. June 16, 2016.