Sunday, November 19, 2017

In labour years ..... Year 2 is where Site C is at now with a six to seven-eleven years to go.

Is it too late to ask for a redraw of the labour requirements?


Volume 3 - Figure 17.5 - Monthly labour requirements for project construction


Notes:  Includes provision for contingency  Source:  BC Hydro (2012A)
Labour needs in flux due to slides upstream
Labour counted in Years sounds so much more impressive than months?




Environmental Impact Statement for Site C Clean Energy Project

Volume 3 - Table of Contents
Volume 3 - List of Appendices
Volume 3 - Authorship
Volume 3 - Abbreviations and Acronyms
Volume 3 - Definitions
Volume 3 - Section 16 - Local Government Revenue
Volume 3 - Section 17 - Labour Market
Volume 3 - Section 18 - Regional Economic Development
Volume 3 - Section 19 - Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes
Volume 3 - Section 20 - Agriculture
Volume 3 - Section 21 - Forestry
Volume 3 - Section 22 - Oil, Gas and Energy
Volume 3 - Section 23 - Minerals and Aggregates
Volume 3 - Section 24 - Harvest of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Volume 3 - Section 25 - Outdoor Recreation and Tourism
Volume 3 - Section 26 - Navigation
Volume 3 - Section 27 - Visual Resources
Volume 3 - Appendix A1 - Economic Assessment Supporting Documentation - Economic Assessment Interview Methodology
Volume 3 - Appendix A2 - Economic Assessment Supporting Documentation - Project Economic Impacts - BC Input-Output Model, BC Stats
Volume 3 - Appendix A3 - Economic Assessment Supporting Documentation - Labour Market - Additional Baseline Information
Volume 3 - Appendix A4 - Economic Assessment Supporting Documentation - Economic Development Offices and Plans
Volume 3 - Appendix B1 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Approach to Gathering and Integrating Community Baseline Information
Volume 3 - Appendix B2 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - Blueberry River First Nations
Volume 3 - Appendix B3 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - Duncan -s First Nation
Volume 3 - Appendix B4 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - Horse Lake First Nation
Volume 3 - Appendix B5 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - McLeod Lake Indian Band
Volume 3 - Appendix B6 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - Saulteau First Nation
Volume 3 - Appendix B7 - First Nations Community Baseline Reports - Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table - Doig River First Nation, Halfway River First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, West Moberly First Nations
Volume 3 - Appendix C1 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Land and Resource Use Assessment Interview Methodology
Volume 3 - Appendix C2 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Land and Resource Management Plans and GIS Methodology
Volume 3 - Appendix C3 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Oil, Gas and Energy Exploration and Production Activity
Volume 3 - Appendix C4 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Harvest of Fish and Wildlife Resources
Volume 3 - Appendix C5 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, and Navigation
Volume 3 - Appendix C6 - Land and Resource Use Assessment Supporting Documentation - Visual Resources Supporting Figures
Volume 3 - Appendix D - Agricultural Assessment Supporting Documentation
Volume 3 - Appendix E - Outdoor Recreation Mitigation Plan
Volume 3 - Appendix F - Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes Summary
Volume 3 - Figure 16.1 - Local and regional assessment boundaries for local government revenue
Volume 3 - Figure 17.1 - Local and regional assessment boundaries for labour market
Volume 3 - Figure 17.2 - Changes in labour force, 1995-2010
Volume 3 - Figure 17.3 - Unemployment rate, 1995-2010
Volume 3 - Figure 17.4 - Distribution of construction phase labour force by occupational and skill categories
Volume 3 - Figure 17.5 - Monthly labour requirements for project construction
Volume 3 - Figure 18.1 - Local and regional assessment area boundaries for regional economic development
Volume 3 - Figure 18.2 - Business Licences, City of Fort St. John, 2000 to 2010
Volume 3 - Figure 18.3 - Number of Business Licences by Major Industry, City of Fort St. John, November 8, 2010
Volume 3 - Figure 18.4 - Allocation of Supply Industries and Induced Outputs in LAA during Construction
Volume 3 - Figure 19.1 - Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Local and Regional Assessment Areas (Wildlife resources)
Volume 3 - Figure 19.2 - Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Local and Regional Assessment Areas (Fish and fish habitat)
Volume 3 - Figure 20.1 - Local and regional assessment areas for agriculture
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.1 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 1 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.2 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 2 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.3 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 3 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.4 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 4 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.5 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 5 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.6 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 6 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.7 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 7 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.8 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 8 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.9 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 9 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.10 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 10 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.11 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 11 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.12 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 12 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.13 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 13 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.14 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 14 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.15 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 15 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.16 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 16 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.17 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 17 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.18 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 18 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.19 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 19 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.20 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 20 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.21 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 21 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.22 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 22 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.23 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 23 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.24 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 24 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.2.25 - Land Capability for Agriculture - Map 25 of 25
Volume 3 - Figure 20.3 - Climate Stations
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.1 - Agricultural Utility - Map 1 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.2 - Agricultural Utility - Map 2 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.3 - Agricultural Utility - Map 3 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.4 - Agricultural Utility - Map 4 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.5 - Agricultural Utility - Map 5 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.6 - Agricultural Utility - Map 6 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.7 - Agricultural Utility - Map 7 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.8 - Agricultural Utility - Map 8 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.9 - Agricultural Utility - Map 9 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.10 - Agricultural Utility - Map 10 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.11 - Agricultural Utility - Map 11 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.12 - Agricultural Utility - Map 12 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.13 - Agricultural Utility - Map 13 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.14 - Agricultural Utility - Map 14 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.15 - Agricultural Utility - Map 15 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.4.15 - Agricultural Utility - Map 16 of 16
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.1 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 1 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.2 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 2 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.3 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 3 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.4 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 4 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.5 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 5 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.6 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 6 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.7 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 7 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.8 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 8 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.9 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 9 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.10 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 10 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.5.11 - Agricultural Land Use - Map 11 of 11
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.1 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 1 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.2 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 2 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.3 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 3 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.4 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 4 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.5 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 5 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.6 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 6 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.7 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 7 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.8 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 8 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.9 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 9 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 20.6.10 - PAZ components affecting agriculture - Map 10 of 10
Volume 3 - Figure 21.1 - Local and regional assessment areas for forestry
Volume 3 - Figure 21.2 - Harvest history and annual allowable cut
Volume 3 - Figure 21.3 - Timing of annual harvest
Volume 3 - Figure 22.1 - Local and regional assessment areas for oil, gas and energy
Volume 3 - Figure 22.2 - Montney activity and land sale map, 2012
Volume 3 - Figure 22.3 - Petroleum and natural gas wells and pipelines in the Local Assessment Area
Volume 3 - Figure 22.4 - Illustration of drilling techniques and associated tenure requirements
Volume 3 - Figure 23.1 - Local and regional assessment area for minerals and aggregates including aggregate pits in the Project area
Volume 3 - Figure 24.1 - Local and regional assessment area boundaries for harvest of fish and wildlife resources
Volume 3 - Figure 24.2 - Registered traplines in the local assessment area
Volume 3 - Figure 24.3 - Species trapped in the local assessment area
Volume 3 - Figure 24.4 - Guide outfitting areas in the local assessment area
Volume 3 - Figure 25.1 - Local and Regional Assessment Areas for outdoor recreation and tourism
Volume 3 - Figure 25.2 - Overnight stays at Peace Island Park, 2002-2010
Volume 3 - Figure 26.1 - Highway 29 realignment section Map 1 of 4 - Lynx Creek
Volume 3 - Figure 26.2 - Highway 29 realignment section Map 2 of 4 - Farrell Creek
Volume 3 - Figure 26.3 - Highway 29 realignment section Map 3 of 4 - Halfway River
Volume 3 - Figure 26.4 - Highway 29 realignment section Map 4 of 4 - Cache Creek
Volume 3 - Figure 26.5 - Navigation local and regional assessment area
Volume 3 - Figure 26.6 - Activity participation of respondents by activity and day type
Volume 3 - Figure 26.7 - Activity participation of respondents by area
Volume 3 - Figure 26.8 - Activity participation of respondents by point of access
Volume 3 - Figure 26.9 - North Peace Regional Airport
Volume 3 - Figure 26.10 - Simulated minimum depth contours for Site C minimum flow of 390 centimetres from Site C dam site to Old Fort
Volume 3 - Figure 26.11 - Simulated minimum depth contours for Site C minimum flows of 390 centimetres from Old Fort to Taylor
Volume 3 - Figure 26.12 - Navigation use restrictions during construction (west)
Volume 3 - Figure 26.13 - Navigation use restrictions during construction (east)
Volume 3 - Figure 26.14 - Navigational use restrictions early years post filling
Volume 3 - Figure 27.1 - Local and regional assessment areas for visual resources
Volume 3 - Figure 27.2 - Existing Visual Conditions and Baseline Viewpoints
Volume 3 - Figure 27.3 - Established Visual Quality Objectives, Project Visibility and Receptor Sites
Volume 3 - Figure 27.4 - Receptor Site 1 Highway 29, overlooking Bear Flats
Volume 3 - Figure 27.5 - Receptor Site 2 Highway 29, overlooking Attachie
Volume 3 - Figure 27.6 - Receptor Site 3 Highway 29, east of Farrell Creek
Volume 3 - Figure 27.7 - Receptor Site 4 Highway 29, west of Farrell Creek Bridge
Volume 3 - Figure 27.8 - Receptor Site 5 Hudson's Hope, Canyon Drive

Volume 3 - Figure 27.2 - Existing Visual Conditions and Baseline Viewpoints


***************************

Laila Yuile.... Post on The Billion Dollar Question with only one right answer

Friday, November 10, 2017

BC Hydro Site C would generate savings to ratepayers in the range of $650 to $900,000,000 (Typical household) with "Insurance Power"?

Its not clear to us if the number Premier Christy Clark used to sell Site C to her followers makes any sense at all.  They took a hypocritical hypothetical average on the first 50 years of Site C and then theorized that the range would be from $650         to      $900,000,000 in savings which would equate to 6 to 8 % for the typical household.     The larger number benefiting the few for the sole purpose of providing FREE hydro electricity to the LNG producers use, and to mining outfits like Imperial Metals who's Alberta owner coincidentally donated heavily to the BC Liberal Party, would be the beneficiaries leaving ratepayers on the hook to build the well over BUDGET transmission lines to Red Chris mine.
Over the first 50 years of Site C's project life, ratepayers will save an average of $650 to $900 million each year, compared to alternatives - this amounts to average annual savings of approximately six to eight per cent for the typical household.  The project will generate a century of low-cost power, providing enough electricity for about 450,000 homes per year - an eight-per-cent increase in supply to BC Hydro's system in 2024. - News release
As to that 450,000 homes per year being created by Site C...... what about Premier Gordon Campbell's backing of Grouse Mountain Resort's Eye of the Wind..... in 2010 .. Winter Olympics where they promised that the 'amusement park ride' (wheelchair not permitted into the elevator) would have a "capacity of 1.5 megawatts – which Grouse Mountain estimates is enough to power up to 400 homes a year – and is expected to generate up to 25 per cent of the resort's operational electricity needs annually."    BC Hydro congratulates Grouse Mountain Resort on The Eye of the Wind turbine's successful clean energy generation

Grouse Mountain Resort Eye of the Wind
Using simple math    if  one wind turbine can have a capacity that would service 400 homes then Site C's claim that they will be able to service 450,000 homes ... means that with the erection of 1,125 wind turbines ......  why build Site C at all.

Not on the north shore of Metro Vancouver because..... there has never been enough wind at Grouse Mountain that would warrant building a turbine up there on the mountain except for one exception,  The Amusement Park.




 BC Hydro News Archives 2010


December 16, 2014
Office of the Premier Christy Clark:
 Site C to provide more than 100 years of affordable, reliable clean power

 News release

 Backgrounder: Growing demand

 Backgrounder: Site C capital cost estimate

 Backgrounder: comparing the options:

 Backgrounder: about site C: 

 Backgrounder: labour requirements for Site C and LNG:

********************************

Anonymous said:

Any word on the efficacy of the $1B 'Smart Meter' program?


 2012 Post:
Smart Meter Buzz Words

January 2016 Post:

Acquire additional 'insurance power' by 2026

November 2017 Post (now):  Just what is INSURANCE POWER


https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/.../info_-_2008_ltap_decision.pdfJul 27, 2009 - information regarding the energy purchases from other persons the public ...... of “insurance power" beyond the projected increases in demand to minimize the risk ... By 2026, BC Hydro will acquire 3,000 gigawatt hours of.


1,100 Megawatts to power 450,000

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Robin Mathews: No Norway trillion$ here. HUGE debt YES for Canadians

False News.  False Newsmakers.  Untroubled Power.
                       
                                  By Robin Mathews, November 2017

In a colonial country as wealthy in raw materials as Canada is awakening can take decades, if not centuries.  If Canada had taken control and major ownership of Canadian fossil fuels (just for instance), it might have no national or provincial debt. And, like Norway (with fewer fossil fuel resources than Canada has) it could be sporting something like Norway’s One Trillion Dollar Heritage Fund for use in (future) troubled times.  Instead, Canadian governments have HUGE debt and Canadians live in troubled times  now.

If Canada had only retained the right of the Bank of Canada to make interest-free loans to Canadian governments for infrastructure and related needs (Pierre Trudeau handed the right away in 1974 on behalf of Canadian and global private banks), then the Canadian Heritage Fund for use on a rainy day might easily be pushing far above the One Trillion Dollar mark  instead of being virtually a minus quantity as it is now .

The picture is depressing, especially since those are only two examples among a great many Canadian (colonial) failures to grasp opportunity. It is especially depressing because Canadians are brainwashed to see none of it, and they are trained to believe that (1) the Canadian wealthy and political leadership are, usually, honest; (2) that bad, bad things happen where it really matters, in the USA.  But not here; (3) that fake news and fake newsmakers are in the USA  not in Canada; (4) that the CBC, for instance, covers Canada well; (5) that bad people happen in Canada, but not often, and we  (deeply colonial in fact, and deeply a part of the worst U.S. savagery engaged in around the world - actively refusing to take over our own government for our own people) are - somehow  admirable and principled people with admirable and principled leaders.

We think all of those things because the majority of Canadian journalists and political commentators are earnest, focussed, even intense  shams. Where they are not (mostly) out-and-out liars  they are (mostly) lies.  The first group misleads on purpose.  The second is taken in and tells lies because it believes them.

What do leading Canadian political commentators have to say about all that?  Why  nothing, of course. That’s why they’re leading political commentators (Canadian-style). Take Chantal Hebert, just for instance “ all over the press and media.  And Andrew Coyne, columnist for the National Post (and elsewhere). Those two are higher profile than many others  but representative of the pack, I say.

The National Post, remember, was founded by ex-convict Conrad Black.  The paper was founded specifically to further neo-liberal (what I call neo-fascist) politics in Canada.  The National Post would have collapsed early if it had been a normal business undertaking.  It wasn’t that.  It was founded as a propaganda sheet for neo-liberal (neo-fascist) forces in Canada. For at least its first twelve years it lost money  year after year after year  and may be still doing so.  It’s kept alive as a political pamphlet masquerading as a daily newspaper.

It should have disappeared.  But someone swallows its debt and keeps it going as a major propaganda source for the likes of, say, Stephen Harper, for the likes of, say, Andrew Scheer “ for what I call fascist politics in Canada.

When Conrad Black (Lord Black of Cross Harbour) was released from U.S. prison  he had a problem.  Having renounced Canadian citizenship to become a British Lord, he didn’t belong in Canada.  But if he went home to England and tried to enter the House of Lords as a Lord himself, he would have been tossed out on his ear and sent packing. The Lords of Britain are not attracted to ex-convicts!

Since the National Post had helped prepare the victory of Stephen Harper’s neo-liberal (I say neo-fascist) Conservative government, Harper was happy to have Lord Black take up residence in Canada.  The National Post welcomed him.  The Globe and Mail positively fawned on him  as if a hero.

Remember too: the Globe and Mail, the National Post and ALL the Post Media newspapers across Canada worked for a Stephen Harper victory in the 2015 election.  Let us not fool ourselves about Canada’s Free Press.  So let us not fool ourselves, either, about Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne, and their kind. 

Andrew Coyne works for the National Post.  Chantal Hebert writes for other outlets. Both Hebert and Coyne have been long members of CBC’s panel on National Affairs where the absolutely key issues of Canadian life are never discussed .  Chantal Hebert is even, Canadian-style, a senior Fellow of Massey College in the University of Toronto.  When you get into the belly of the Canadian Ruling Class  it shows  and shows.  Lyin’ Brian Mulroney’s last Chief of Staff (before Mulroney went down in flames) is the present Master of Massey College, (Hugh Segal).

Hebert and Coyne (I say) are everywhere.  They do the bidding of their masters. They do not (I say) work for Canadians.  They work for their masters and live in the land of Perks Canada.  But  But, you say, they have both been energetically on the Bill Morneau-Shepell story.  They have turned over every sod. That is because in the world of Perks Canada Bill Morneau is fair game.  If the Liberals go down, the neo-liberal Conservatives with the same platform are there to take over.   The surface issues can be beaten to death by the likes of Coyne and Hebert.  But the issues beneath the surface: Don’t Touch.

How many sods have they turned over about (retiring?) RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson?  (Strangely retiring early “ at 58.) He had to be the final RCMP overseer of the completely fake evidence-gathering and preparation for the totally phoney thirty-one criminal charges laid against senator Mike Duffy, not one of which held up in an honest court!  That story should have just begun  and should be pursued and headlined every week  but Hebert and Coyne are nowhere to be seen (nor any others in their pack) on the story. And so  as planned by their masters  the outrageous, gigantic story of the false criminal charges against Mike Duffy is  disappearing.

How many sods are they turning over about what had to be Bob Paulson’s role in the GIGANTIC (run-out-of-Ottawa RCMP Headquarters) False Flag entrapment of two defenceless Canadians to fake an Islamic Terrorist Attack at the Victoria, B.C. legislature grounds on July 1, 2013?  (incidentally involving more than 200 RCMP and millions of tax-payers’ dollars). The (face-saving?) Appeal against the unequivocal erasure of ALL charges against the two entrapped Canadians by B.C Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce “ who laid all responsibility for the event upon the RCMP -  is to happen on January 18, 2018.  Where are Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne (and their journalist pack) on one of the Biggest National Terror Stories in Canada since the FLQ Crisis of 1970, involving, almost certainly, Stephen Harper and the PMO, and now the Trudeau cabinet?  Hebert and Coyne, and their pack   are  (you guessed it!) nowhere to be seen.

Sods turned over? None whatever.  Sorry.

Two entrapped, socially challenged Canadians were framed and then charged by RCMP dirty tactics, and stripped of freedom.  They were jailed  robbed of their basic rights and liberties as Canadians.  Then improperly convicted  facing more harassment until B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce told the real story of what has to be named highly organized RCMP crime. Why do we not hear from Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert who have to know that Bob Paulson had to be informed  at least, of galloping RCMP criminality?  And that Stephen Harper’s PMO almost certainly had to be neck-deep in it all  and that the cabinet of Justin Trudeau is doing absolutely nothing to assure the RCMP is brought to justice? Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne, and their fellow journalists are   very far away  somewhere else  chasing Bill Morneau.  (Chasing Bill Morneau is okay.)

And now Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the federal government has (I insist) endorsed RCMP criminal activity an outrageous act, for which he should be forced to resign.  Where are Chantal Hebert, Andrew Coyne and their spineless, conscienceless pack?  Why  Why are they letting Ralph Goodale off without so much as a question?

All this is brutally vile.  Two innocent Canadians.  Entrapped. Charged with false charges.  Tried. Harassed. Jailed  for months.  Targeted.  Still being dragged through horror so the RCMP can fake legitimacy with a Supreme Court of B.C. Appeal.  Will it be a stacked court?   We will have to wait and see .

Where oh where  on another issue  are Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne and their pack  how many sods have they turned over   as Big Oil in Alberta, hand in hand with the Alberta government and the Alberta courts and the Alberta RCMP and, of course, the Alberta ˜open and free press and media’ continue their program to wreck the life of Jessica Ernst. (The only stellar exception in the Jessica Ernst story is journalist Andrew Nikiforuk who tracks the Corporate/Court Horror Story for all who care.) Ernst is trying to gain a shred of justice and meaningful regulation in the matter of public health, landscape destruction, air/water and general environmental poisoning by Encana Corporation and the rest of Big Oil in Alberta (by fracking and other means) starting with the fracking pollution and destruction of her own farmland in Rosebud, Alberta? 

Jessica Ernst is just back from appearing in England and Ireland where she is something of a hero “ for alerting the Irish to the truth about Fracking  so they could outlaw it.  She did  much to alert North America  and most certainly Alberta.  The Right in power in Alberta at the time when she began didn’t support her   at all.  Worked to obstruct her. But the NDP?  When it came to power surely all must have changed.

Sorry.  Not at all. The bold NDP took power in Alberta in 2015, and to show her courage and determination to serve the people, Rachel Notley, premier, did nothing to support Jessica Ernst.  Premier Notley, in fact, retained as Alberta Energy Regulator a man who had been president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and a top officer of Encana Corporation.  Ridiculous? Of course. That is the fossil fuel corporation against whom Jessica Ernst has fought, facing every dirty trick (I allege) that big power, corrupted courts, and sleazy policing   and money can use. Rachel Notley (keeping on what I call the odious regulator) was telling Big Oil in Alberta (I allege) that she is Big Oil’s Girl “ Now And Forever .

Every decent Canadian must wonder how  in addition  when a portion of the Jessica Ernst court matters got to the Supreme Court of Canada  Justice Rosalie Abella could have termed Jessica Ernst a vexatious litigant “ as insulting a phrase as almost any that a judge can speak .  Not only was Justice Abella wrong “ as other judges made clear (Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, for instance).  But the insult was included in the written report and sent to the media.

Planned?  Paid for? A dirty set-up? An intention to slander? How can we know unless Justice Abella appears publicly to explain and apologize?  And of course she wont unless pressed to do so.  We may be sure that neither Chantal Hebert nor Andrew Coyne (nor any of what I call the ˜false newsmaking’ pack) will ask Justice Abella to explain publicly her monstrous insult. Not because they can‘t  but because they won’t  because that’s not what they are paid to do.  The sods they turn over   do nothing to ruffle the feathers of Real Power anywhere  ever .

And so false newsmaking, false posturing by news-gatherers, and avoidance (all clearly describing and supporting the deep corruption in our democracy) - all those things, I allege, are the bread and butter of Canada’s false newsmakers to assure the continuation of untroubled (corrupt) power.  But untroubled (corrupt) power in Canada means increasingly troubled times  for Canadians.

Contact: Robin Mathews

******************************** 










PS 

More Paradise Paperists??  than just Jean Chretien,  Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney