Ring the Alarm Bells!

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Publius

Based on Dan Lett’s report in the June 6th edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, that hot on

Publius

Publius

the tail of an earlier report that Canadian Tire will be installing ‘banks of servers’ in downtown Winnipeg, it appears that Manitoba Hydro was (and is) prepared to have Manitoba residents and businesses subsidize ’energy hog’ server farms through raising rates for residents and existing business.

Large server farms, while employing few employees, require large amounts of electricity. Hydro’s rates for large industry (about 3 cents per kilowatt hour) are less than one-third of the marginal cost of supply.  Large industry now draws about one-third of Hydro’s supply to provincial ratepayers.

The overall cost per kilowatt hour of power delivered from the newest dam, Wuskwatim, is 10 cents, while the cost of power from a Bipole III (western route) carrying power from Keeyask and/or Conawapa (the new dams promoted by Hydro and its sponsor, the provincial government) will be higher than that.

Prior to Hydro’s latest rate application, which was approved by a too compliant, too trusting Public Utility Board, both Hydro and PUB (that is, PUB’s previous panel) were concerned with the risk that ’energy hogs’ would come to Manitoba and drive demand up, requiring the advancement of construction of new generation and transmission at high absolute and unit power costs, with the new entrants expecting to be billed at current large industry rates (which are based on the ‘cost’ of Hydro’s old highly depreciated generating and transmission assets).

To protect existing ratepayers, Hydro proposed the introduction of a new Energy Intensive Industry Rate (EIIR), to be based on the marginal cost of ‘new production’, thus saving existing residents and businesses from subsidizing new high-demand low-employment energy hogs.

It seems Hydro didn’t pursue an EIIR in its last rate application, and, as well, withheld its involvement in pursuing Canadian Tire and Facebook. Is the government driving Hydro’ marketing of power? What else is out there?

Ring the alarm bells! Hydro and its government are willing to have existing ratepayers subsidize not only American utilities but, also, new energy hog entrants to the Province.

Posted in Elections, Manitoba, Role of Government, Unsorted | Comments Off

Promoting Health Through Less Regulation

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Peter McCaffrey

Yesterday I had a very interesting meeting with a couple of staff members from the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region.

We covered what each of our organisations do, and shared how we operate and work towards improving the lives of Reginans and Canadians.

In particular I enjoyed sharing some ideas for promoting public health through less regulation rather than more. Why introduce new rules, when simply removing existing rules could have similar, if not better outcomes?

For example, many current city policies effectively subsidise car travel. Forcing businesses to provide minimum numbers of car parks, together with cheap public parking can make public transport and cycling seem comparatively more expensive than it would be in a free market.

Similarly, cycle helmet requirements can often have unintended consequences. Just today there were further calls for regulation in the news. But studies have shown (here’s just one simple one) that helmet laws can lead to fewer people cycling and the associated increase in health costs outweighs the savings from accidents. Little consolation if you’re in crash yourself to be sure, but no-one is forcing you not to wear one!

Drunk driving is another huge problem that the province needs to urgently address. Coming from New Zealand I was shocked by how acceptable it is here in Saskatchewan to drive after having far more drinks than I would consider appropriate.

The problem is cultural and takes a long time develop, as well as fix, but after only a few weeks it was very clear to me what the primary cause was here – at least in the cities. In New Zealand taxis are plentiful, accessible and cheap. Calling a taxi at the end of the night is actually pretty unusual, as when you leave a bar, there’s usually half a dozen taxis lined up outside waiting for your business.

In Saskatchewan, I’ve waited 30 minutes, 45 minutes or even up to an hour for an expensive taxi and the busier the night, the worse the problem. Why? Because the council sets a hard limit on the number of taxis that can be operated in the city.

Under those circumstances, it’s easy to see (though no more acceptable) why people would just decide to drive home. Education campaigns, and a wider culture change are still needed, but abolishing the cap on taxi numbers would provide an immediate positive impact.

The New Zealand example shows it’s possible for taxi drivers to make a decent living in a less regulated market, so surely the welfare of the city as a whole, should trump the interests and profits of a few big taxi companies?

Overall it was a great meeting, and thanks to the RQHR staff for the meeting!

Posted in Unsorted | Comments Off

Observations from the Western Canadian Aviation Forum

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Steve Lafleur

The Winnipeg Airports Authority was kind enough to invite me to participate in their Western Canadian Aviation Forum. While it is a policy conference, most of the presenters are from industry and government, which provides a slightly different perspective than conferences that are primarily populated and presented by academics and scholars. I’ve accumulated a few observations over the past two days that I’d like to throw out for consideration.

First, every single person I’ve encountered understands the value of liberalizing the airline industry. Recent reports from the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the Conference Board of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and the Frontier Centre have all argued for liberalization. There is a consensus between industry, scholars, and government researchers, yet there has been little movement on the file. Points of particular agreement include the need to eliminate the more than $250 million in crown rents the federal government collects annually from airports, and the need to reduce foreign ownership restrictions to ensure that Canada’s airline industry is adequately capitalized. Unfortunately, Canada’s airline policy (or defacto policy direction) has been the opposite of the American approach: our government seems to care more about protecting the industry than consumers.

Second, despite the above mentioned consensus, Transport Canada bureaucrats continue to fabricate arguments against liberalization. In particular, they point to the fact that there is still excess capacity in the airline industry as a sign that we don’t need liberalization. To paraphrase comments by speaker John Byerly, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Affairs at the U.S. Department of State:

“I don’t buy it. I’ve been part of these negotiations. I spent 31 years in government. I’m a product of bureaucracy. If there’s one thing government officials are afraid of, it’s giving up control.” “Do bureaucrats have superior knowledge to markets?”

Third, we need to have a serious national debate over who should bear the costs of air travel. For instance, in the United States, airports are subsidized because governments view them as “spark plugs” for economic activity, while the Canadian government views them as “toll booths.” On the one hand, I am in favour of internalizing costs to the extent possible. On the other hand, I don’t believe the airline industry should be a cash cow. Ultimately, the government needs to recognize the opportunity cost of chasing passengers to the United States. Having roughly 5 million Canadian passenger trips originating from US border airports deprives the federal government of tax revenue, and Canadian airports (and surrounding regions) of economic activity.

Fourth, and following on the last point, we need to determine whether and why losing those  5 million passengers is actually important. After all, if the US government wants to subsidize Canadian passengers, it can be seen as a nice gift. Moreover, when Canadians spend money in the United States, it comes back to Canada eventually. That’s just how currency works. My primary concern is the deadweight loss from uncompetitive airline policy. There is a cost (both in money and time) to Canadians driving several hours to fly out of the United States. Additionally, those costs price many potential customers out of the airline market. Moreover, having several ground trips to the United States simply to connect to flights puts additional stress on Canadian highways and border crossings. These are costs that existing reports have not addressed.

Fifth, coming back to fees, is the question of how to pay for security. One presenter argued that airline security costs should be paid for from general government revenue, rather than through passenger fees. His arguments are that: (a) the risk of terrorism is an externality, (b) terrorism is fungible (“if they’re not bombing planes, they’re bombing something else”). Point (a) is fairly persuasive on its own. After all, airline security isn’t just about passengers, as we’re acutely aware. Point (b) is one I hadn’t thought of. After all, if planes didn’t exist, there’d be a greater demand for train bombings, etc (to put it crudely). Planes are merely sopping up terrorism investment, which is a boon to the treasury. When I solicited opinions on this point, Marc Scribner from the Competitive Enterprise Institute pointed out that general revenue funding in the United States has enabled a massive, inefficient expansion of air security spending. That is a fairly compelling counterargument. Perhaps we ought to take the advice of Glen Hodgson from the Conference Board of Canada, who argued that the real solution is to privatize air security so that companies will have to bid on airport security contracts, rather than having a single government monopoly. Moreover, if we’re going to have an airline security charge, it should be earmarked for security, rather than accruing to general revenue.

Sixth, how do we pay for airports? Currently, airports are run as non-profit organization that pay ground rents to the federal government. The trouble is that they aren’t able to use shareholder equity for capital expansions, as private companies do. To quote Mary Jane Bennett, who wrote Frontier’s recent report on Canadian airports: “The current not-for-profit model results in today’s airport users funding tomorrow’s upgrades.” Selling airports to private operators (like we’ve done with our award winning air traffic control system) is something we should seriously consider.

Seventh, it’s interesting to note that Canadian airports, which move roughly 80 million passengers annually, pay nearly $300 million in ground rents annually. Via Rail, which moves 3.8 million passengers per year, receives roughly $300 million per year in subsidies. One might think of this as an indirect transfer from a fast, high capacity transportation mode, to a slow, low capacity transportation mode. That seems rather silly.

Eighth, air service to small centres could become substantially more expensive as the aviation industry shifts away from building smaller planes. One presenter suggested that the industry will likely cease production of jets with capacities of under 60 passengers (or some similar number), due to a lack of demand. This would likely increase the cost of remote service, which could require difficult choices in the future. I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but it sounds like a plausible concern. I asked the presenter if he had a solution for this problem, and neither of us could come up with a simple one.

These are discussions we should be having. I’m happy to see that the Winnipeg Airports Authority hosting this event, but we need to have many, many more such discussions — and the political class needs to recognize the political opportunity from focusing more on consumers, rather than the industry.

 

Posted in Transport | Comments Off

Crocus Resurrected

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Publius

Winnipeg remained in winter’s grip, as Jack Dalgliesh, formerly a provincial civil servant

Publius

Publius

and now retired and a whistleblower, shared his knowledge and opinions concerning the long-failed labour sponsored Crocus Investment Fund to a Frontier Centre breakfast gathering on April 30th.

Dalgliesh surprised his attentive audience of the curious by reporting that Crocus’ Main Street office remains open, despite the ongoing liquidation of the Fund’s assets, which began in 2005.  (Dalgliesh noted that the significant costs still being incurred through the liquidation process are being met by what is left of the assets of the Fund, further reducing recoveries available to Fund investors.)

And, following his calmly-delivered half hour review of his critical take of matters pertaining to Crocus’ collapse, which included a claim of malfeasance by the NDP government and its now-Premier and then-Minister of Finance Greg Selinger, he surprised again at the end of his talk by providing the departing audience with copies of his recent letter to federal Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson.

In his letter, Dalgliesh accuses Selinger of breach of trust, claiming that Selinger not only championed a legislative amendment allowing Crocus shareholders to ‘roll over’ their maturing investments when he knew Crocus was illiquid, but also, and despite Selinger’s knowledge of Crocus’ ‘terminal’ problems, promoted new sales (resulting in significant losses by investors).

The former bureaucrat, who was a member of a team of civil servants that analyzed Crocus’ situation and prepared a critical Cabinet submission (signed by Selinger and presented to Cabinet), also claimed (both in his talk and letter) that Selinger allowed Crocus to publish a prospectus that, while failing to provide material adverse information, was used by Crocus and its union backers to sell the Fund to unwitting investors.

In concluding his letter to Justice Minister Nicholson, Dalgliesh not only asks that Selinger be ‘investigated for breach of trust for his actions and inactions’, but also calls for a federal ‘.. review of NDP government ministers personal patterns of investing and divesting of shares of … Crocus … and … Crocus … expenditures in the same period for goods and services provided by individuals and companies related to NDP government ministers’.

While the passage of time and previous reports on the Crocus fiasco have dimmed the general public’s interest in matters related to Crocus, when a senior former bureaucrat comes forth and speaks out, accusing ‘sitting’ politicians of grave misconduct, with no possible personal gain to accrue to the accuser, he should not be ignored.

Posted in Manitoba | Tagged | Comments Off

The Ontario government should not try to set insurance rates

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Steve Lafleur

In an attempt to garner NDP support for the provincial budget, the governing Liberals have pledged to reduce auto insurance rates by 15 percent. While this makes for excellent retail politics, it doesn’t make any economic sense.

Insurance rates are determined by many factors, but the fundamental role of insurance rates is two-fold: generating sufficient revenue to compensate accident victims, and reducing the number of collisions that happen to begin with.

It is entirely possible — if not likely — that costs are unnecessarily high due to fraud, or bad regulations. But mandating a specific rate reduction would go some way towards undermining the fundamental goal of auto insurance.

The government should do what it can to create the conditions for market driven insurance rates that internalize the entire cost of collisions and payouts (which would presumably be lower).

There is no good reason to subsidize auto insurance, and there certainly is no reason to undermine the industry. No one likes paying for auto insurance. But Ontarians are all better off having a functional insurance system that adequately accounts for risk and consequences.

Posted in Regulation, Transport | Comments Off

Cloud Computing Centre – Electricity Bill Subsidized?

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Publius

A red flag may be warranted.

While, the recent announcement of Canadian Tire’s Cloud Computing Centre is welcome news on several counts, there is one implication of the pending arrival that may not be so well received.

Manitoba Hydro has (correctly) been concerned about the potential for a new or expanded energy intensive industry being subsidized by present (existing) ratepayers.  While Hydro proposed a new rate be set for electricity sold to such customers starting at least five years ago, a rate that would represent the marginal cost of new power, nothing has materialized.  Discussions surrounding the prospect for such customers waned since the 2008 global credit crisis and recession, and with no new major industry arriving in Manitoba since the 1990s.

The marginal cost to Hydro of the production, transmission and distribution of electricity could exceed 10 cents per kilowatt hour, while the price now being charged high volume industrial customers averages less than 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

If the demand from an intensive new or expanded industry was to be significant, it would either drive an earlier than otherwise required expansion (at high cost) or reduce the power that can be exported on a fixed price basis.

While Premier Selinger’s news release heralding the coming arrival of Canadian Tire’s cloud computing centre does not mention inexpensive electricity as being an element in the firm’s decision, other reports suggest that ‘cheap power’ was a factor. (Server farms require substantial volumes of electricity, have relatively few workers and locate where power is inexpensive.)

The implications for Manitoba Hydro and its existing ratepayers of the advent of a cloud computing centre should be made clear. If the new centre is anticipated to be treated as a major industrial power user and billed at current industrial rates, the inherent subsidy from marginal cost should be ‘picked up’ by ‘core’ government and not through future rate increases for Hydro’s current customers.

Transparency is required (not a regular attribute of the government).

 

Posted in Unsorted | Comments Off

Complete Surrender

Posted on May 1, 2013 by Publius

Over the space of two days late last week, the prior good reputation of Manitoba’s Public Utilities Board (PUB) was soiled and lost, perhaps forever.  Unfortunately, Manitobans have not only lost a check on Manitoba’s government-owned monopolies, but will have to pay more for electricity much more in the future).

Those sitting on Manitoba’s administrative tribunals, PUB the most prominent, are all appointed by the Selinger government (without a competition and all-party vetting), serve at the pleasure of that government, and operate pursuant to mandates provided by that government. Given these circumstances, one would be forgiven for suggesting of a real, not just perceived, conflict of interest.

PUB’s surrender began last Thursday, when the agency accepted the government’s restricted and inadequate terms of reference for a review PUB is to undertake of Manitoba Hydro’s capital development and export plans.  The surrender became a rout the next day, last Friday, when PUB not only approved Hydro’s latest rate increases  but announced it had withdrawn a subpoena it had served on Hydro almost two years ago. The subpoena demanded the production of Hydro’s export contracts, to allow PUB to assess the validity of Hydro’s export volumes and prices (those forecasts underlie Hydro’s development plans).

For 100 years, despite the conflicted and faulty appointment process, a succession of PUB members laboured in the public interest to ensure just and reasonable utility rates based on reasonable actions, costs and supportable forecasts. PUB attempted to hold the monopolies it regulated to account, honouring the premise that, from an adjudicative perspective, PUB was independent of the government of the day.

Before moving on to highlight and condemn the three elements of PUB’s recent surrender, Publius takes a moment to lament the loss of ‘innocence’, with these recent actions PUB’s independent adjudicative status has been compromised.

Ratepayers had an ally with the pre-2012 PUB (PUB’s member roster was totally revamped in April 2012). No more. And, with the Auditor General, who was on the Board of Directors of Hydro before taking up her new post, having recused herself and her Office from reviewing Hydro, after the Ombudsman had referred the Hydro file for investigation to the Auditor General, PUB had been the only body exercising any substantive external and transparent oversight over Hydro.

(Neither the Board of Directors of Hydro nor Crown Corporation Council, with all the members of both agencies appointed by government, can be expected to exercise any degree of independent oversight of Hydro, given the government’s oft-stated, incredibly expensive and risky plans for the Utility.)

PUB never should have agreed to hold what can only be described as a sham review of the plans for Hydro. Nor should PUB have agreed to up the rates further without first having conducted a proper and truly independent review of Hydro’s plans, this requiring access to the export contracts, an ability to consider all options to the plans, and, reviewing already incurred expenses and related actions.  (Giving up on the subpoena represents yet another catastrophic failure on PUB’s part.)

With Hydro already having spent at least a billion on an

Publius

Publius

incredibly risky plan, and with no government-related agency standing up for ratepayers-taxpayers, it seems that absent a miraculous intervention the government has a clear path to ‘drive’ the utility ‘over the cliff’.

The costs to ratepayers and taxpayers of the unfolding disaster cannot be calculated.

What has been spent cannot be recovered, and commitments made, however unsound, are very difficult to unwind.

Publius cries for Manitoba.

Posted in Energy, Environment, Manitoba, Poverty, Public Enterprise, Regulation, Role of Government, Taxation | Comments Off

Behind The Scenes

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Peter McCaffrey

Given our blog is a little more casual than our regular publications, I think it provides a good opportunity to give you all a bit of a behind-the-scenes look at what we do here at the Frontier.

Given how spread out we are across the country, we usually conduct our meetings via videoconference (Skype for 1-1 and GoToMeeting for group discussions).

Here is a screenshot of some of us this morning, sharing a joke during a meeting:

Top row: Joseph Quesnel (Lethbridge, AB), Ben Eisen (New York, NY), Peter McCaffrey (Regina, SK)
Bottom row: Peter Holle (Winnipeg, MB), Marco Navarro-Genie (Calgary, AB), Darla Hooker (Winnipeg, MB).

 

Posted in Unsorted | Comments Off

Kudos to Environment Minister Peter Kent for giving Canadians a climate scare-free Earth Day

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Tom Harris

The drive to ‘stop climate change’ now so dominates the environmental movement that important concerns such as river, ocean and ground water clean-up are often pushed aside. Earth Day Network, the major organization behind Earth Day, focused so intensely on climate change on their Website this year that one would think they were promoting ‘Climate Day.’

Earth Day has been hijacked by climate extremists. Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent’s Earth Day speeches were a welcomed exception to this problem.

Naturally, many politicians followed suit. President Barack Obama made climate the main emphasis of his Earth Day 2013 Presidential Proclamation asserting:

“We cannot afford to ignore what the overwhelming judgment of science tells us: that climate change is real and that it poses an urgent threat to our people and our planet. That is why my Administration set historic fuel efficiency standards that will nearly double how far our cars go on a gallon of gas while reducing harmful carbon pollution. It is why we made unprecedented investments in clean energy, allowing us to double renewable energy production in only 4 years. And it is why I am challenging Americans to double it again by 2020.

“Because climate change and other environmental problems cannot be fully addressed by government alone, we are also engaging key stakeholders at home and abroad. Last year, we launched a global initiative to cut short-lived climate pollutants that contribute to global warming. We have proposed historic investments in Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. And we continue to stand behind innovators and entrepreneurs who will unleash the next wave of clean energy technologies and drive long-term economic growth. At the same time, we are working to protect our communities and our economy from the unavoidable effects of climate change that we are already starting to feel.

“Today, America is sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly 20 years. But we owe it to our children to do more. That is why I have called on the Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change. In the meantime, I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed our transition to sustainable energy.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry went even further, stating in his excited climate-focused Earth Day speech that,

“The science is screaming at all of us and demands action” on global warming.

Several states made seemingly impressive climate-related announcements on Earth Day:

  • Massachusetts launched the Electric Vehicle Incentive Program, to help the state reach their Global Warming Solutions Act emission reduction goals (25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050).
  • Massachusetts also launched a new dashboard for Global Warming Solutions Act initiatives.
  • New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “…we will continue to press for much tougher protections, including fighting against climate change pollution…”

In Canada’s House of Commons, opposition MP’s pounded the Government about climate change on Earth Day:

Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.):  “The government has abdicated any national leadership role in combatting climate change, the most pressing environmental issue facing the planet.”

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  “Under the successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has failed miserably in terms of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives made Canada the one and only country to withdraw from the Kyoto accord. Also for the first time, unlike any other country in the world, the Conservatives withdrew from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.”

Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP):  ”Earth Day is a good day to review the Conservatives’ environmental record. They withdrew from the Kyoto protocol … they called into question the science of climate change…”

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): ”We know that global greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise, and if we do nothing, we could surpass the 2°C threshold, which would have irreversible consequences. Denying the truth will not help us find solutions.”

Dozens of environmental groups issued similarly exaggerated climate-focused Earth Day statements.

  • Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said, “If you love the Earth, you need to know some things about tar sands crude – starting with how it would affect the climate of this wonderful planet we all share. Actually, “affect” is probably the wrong word. We’re talking wholesale destruction.”
  • Gene Karpinski, president at the League of Conservation Voters, blogged, “One of the best ways to celebrate Earth Day is to continue working to combat climate change and protect our planet for future generations. With 2012 being the hottest year on record in the continental United States and climate change fueling deadly and costly floods, droughts, wildfires, and Superstorm Sandy, it’s clear that the time to act is now.”

Businesses used the heavy climate focus of Earth Day to their advantage as well, for example:

  • Solar Energy Industries Association inaugurated a new $7 million solar installation to supply power to insurance company Assurant Specialty Property. Assurant boasted that the project “translates to a reduction of more than 1,400 tons of CO2, or the equivalent of planting more than 33,000 trees or more than 280 acres of pine forest.”
  • Aetna, one of America’s major health care benefits companies, announced that a new 975 panel solar array has been installed in Windsor, Connecticut to power a major portion of their facility there. Aetna proclaimed, “The environmental savings [sic] generated by the solar installation will equate to 189 metric tons of carbon dioxide.”

This hijacking of the original meaning of April 22 by climate activists is a serious problem for Earth Day’s future. As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility. Earth Day participants, indeed all practical environmentalists, must distance themselves from the ideologically-driven climate scare or risk the movement degenerating into irrelevance

Happily, and perhaps unexpectedly, Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent resisted the temptation to associate his Earth Day speech with the climate scare. In an announcement that included nothing at all about climate, global warming, greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide, Kent and his Alberta counter-part Diana McQueen instead discussed a practical, science-based plan to enhance public access to real pollution data from the oilsands.

Launch of the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Online Portal at the National Wildlife Research Centre in Ottawa (Minister Kent is third from the left; Minister McQueen is to Kent’s left).

Kent said in his Earth Day speech at Carleton University:

“Almost one year ago, I had the pleasure of announcing, with Minister McQueen, the Joint Canada–Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring to ensure the environmental integrity of Canada’s oil sands.

“With this monitoring plan we committed to a scientifically rigorous, comprehensive, integrated, and transparent environmental monitoring plan to deliver the most scientifically-credible picture of the water, air, land and biodiversity issues in the region.

“And now I am pleased to be here again with my Alberta colleague to highlight this important next stage of progress that we are making under our partnership.

“Today, we are launching a new online Joint Data Portal for accessing oil sands environmental data.

“This Joint Data Portal provides the public with ongoing access to the credible scientific data collected through the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Plan and the methodology used to produce it.

“It gives stakeholders access to the scientifically rigorous data necessary to ensure that this important resource is developed in an environmentally responsible way.

“And more importantly, it encourages informed discussions and analysis on the impacts of oil sands development.”

Even more important, is the fact that Kent’s speech and the associated media release and technical reports are completely climate scare-free. Even in his House of Commons responses to Earth Day attacks from opposition MPs, Kent avoided supporting the climate scare as long as he reasonably could, focusing instead on real environmental progress the Government has made on real environmental issues. Here are excerpts from his responses to demands of opposition MPs that he address climate issues:

Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC):  ”Mr. Speaker, Earth Day is a wonderfully appropriate time for the opposition to reflect on the significant investments in budget 2013 in Canada’s environmental priorities. We have invested a quarter of a billion dollars in building up the Canadian weather service. We are investing in conservation of ecologically sensitive lands and fish habitat. There is renewed funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada and new investments and tax support for clean energy generation.”

Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment, CPC): ”Mr. Speaker, our government, as the opposition should know, is committed to developing Canada’s abundant natural resources while at the same time strengthening environmental protections. Earlier today, I had the pleasure, along with Alberta’s minister of the environment, to announce federal and provincial environmental monitoring data of air, water, and biodiversity on an Internet portal. This joint plan represents a scientific undertaking that is unprecedented in Canada.”

It was only later, in response to repeated baiting from opposition MPs, that Kent indirectly supported the climate scare by referencing the Government’s record in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Hopefully Kent’s real-world, science-based approach to this year’s Earth Day is an indication of the beginning of a shift in the Government’s focus away from futile climate control plans to real environmental protection that we can actually accomplish. The approach certainly worked on Earth Day 2013 where, aside from the predictable attacks from climate activists, most coverage of the Government’s announcement was positive.

Bravo, Minister Kent.

____________________

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition and an advisor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Posted in Climate Change, Energy, Environment, Technology, Unsorted | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

First Nations involvement in mining project could be transformative

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Joseph Quesnel

The Ring of Fire deposit north of Thunder Bay, Ontario is expected to generate about $120  billion in economic activity over its entire life.

The deposit includes chromite (used in stainless steel), as well as copper and nickel.

Tony Clement, the treasury board president, has compared the Ring of Fire mining and smelter activity as the “Canada’s next oil sands.” The project itself would transform Northern Ontario, he said.

However, Clement also wisely noted that engagement with the region’s First Nations communities will be essential for the project’s success.

Better yet, First Nations can partner with mining producers, which will generate lasting dividends to these communities. Rather than oppose or hold up the development, these communities should try to generate as many benefits from it as possible.  The mining companies also should work closely with these communities because First Nations have the potential to hold it up.

“It has the potential to transform what was hitherto a very poor, underdeveloped area of Ontario and give people who live there, particularly First Nations people, a chance for a decent life,” Clement said, to the Huffington Post.

Resource development is truly the New Buffalo for First Nations communities and they should engage with it as much as possible.

 

 

Posted in Aboriginal, Poverty, Unsorted | Comments Off

Show Trial on the Red

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Publius

Introduction

At least five years and perhaps $2 billion and several made commitments late, the Selinger

Publius

Publius

government has provided the Public Utilities Board (PUB) direction and terms of reference for a review of Manitoba Hydro’s long-touted development plans. In its effort to assist PUB in holding its review, it has named directly two citizens to join regular PUB members to sit on the panel, while also providing PUB the opportunity to hold a public hearing, call witnesses and receive and hear evidence and submissions.

Devil in the Detail

Less helpfully, the government has, in essence, named those that will hear the case (no competition, no all-party involvement) and  severely limited the scope of the review. PUB will not be able to consider and/or review the role Bipole III is to play in Hydro’s plans (building Bipole III adds annual costs reflecting of a 30% or more rate increase – however Hydro massages their annual rate applications to “feather” the costs in),  nor be able to review and test the arrangements Hydro has made with First Nations.  As to the contracts with American utilities that Hydro presumably has inked, the significant details are to be held back from public knowledge.

To further restrict the value of the review, the terms of reference have been designed to avoid having PUB look into both the economic disaster that is the Wuskwatim generating station (lessons can be learned from that debacle – and not only just related to cost escalation ‘surprises’) and the potential for a diversification-advantage-bringing natural gas plant being built, rather than moving on one or two more hydro stations at this time.

Worst still, there is no indication that any of those named to sit on PUB’s panel have the industry, general experience and knowledge to conduct a proper review, nor the independence to be able to come to unbiased outcome. Worst of all, Hydro has already spent over $1 billion and entered into a variety of major commitments on or related to their plans, ahead of final approval let alone an adequate review, and the government’s recent budget suggests it will spend a further $2 billion on the plans in 2013-14, before PUB’s report is released. Money spent is money gone, if the plans of government do not proceed. Problem is, proceed and the end-costs and rates for consumers could well be worse that writing off what has been spent already.

Conclusion

The review planned and now directed to be held by the government is, in essence, a ‘show trial”; no more than additional propaganda, but this time very expensive propaganda (a PUB hearing is not cheap, providing an enormous income  opportunity for lawyers  and consultants).

Posted in Energy, Environment, Manitoba, Role of Government, Unsorted | Comments Off

Former Shell CEO on Keystone XL

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Peter McCaffrey

Former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister says the Obama administration will eventually approve the Keystone XL pipeline but politics has held up a decision:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/fmr-shell-ceo-keystone-xl-will-loosen-opecs-stranglehold-on-us/2013/04/25/b4a513ca-adc2-11e2-98ef-d1072ed3cc27_video.html

Hofmeister also sets dates for when we will see hydrogen cars en masse on the road, and says exporting liquefied natural gas might be less lucrative than some expect.

Posted in Energy | Comments Off