Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars

[Louis VI the Fat]

That is, their neighbours to the north:

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.
Why? There's a simple answer: Canada is developing the world's second largest reserve of oil. Did I say oil? It's actually a filthy mixture of bitumen, sand, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals. The tar sands, most of which occur in Alberta, are being extracted by the biggest opencast mining operation on earth. An area the size of England, comprising pristine forests and marshes, will be be dug up – unless the Canadians can stop this madness. Already it looks like a scene from the end of the world: the strip-miners are creating a churned black hell on an unimaginable scale.

To extract oil from this mess, it needs to be heated and washed. Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailings), some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface. Most are unlined. They leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases.

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

Canada hasn't acted alone. The biggest leaseholder in the tar sands is Shell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/29/shell-profits-fall), a company that has spent millions persuading the public that it respects the environment. The other great greenwasher, BP, initially decided to stay out of tar. Now it has invested in plants built to process it (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-biggest-environmental-crime-in-history-764102.html). The British bank RBS, 70% of which belongs to you and me (the government's share will soon rise to 84%), has lent or underwritten £8bn for mining the tar sands (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/29/iain-banks-royal-bank-scotland).

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.
Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. Timber firms were licensed to log the old-growth forest in Clayaquot Sound; fishing companies were permitted to destroy the Grand Banks: in both cases these get-rich-quick schemes impoverished Canada and its reputation. But this is much worse, as it affects the whole world. The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan.

I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada. How could that be true?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

Oh Canada! Will you be to the environment what Japan and Norway are to whalery? What Bush was to internation law? To your own people what Shell has been to Nigeria?


This is a dead-end policy. Canada's environment is slowly ruined. Canada is big, but so are the oceans, which turned out not to be infinite either. Human destruction and waste must have a finite limit.

Canada's economic benefits of resource plunder are limited. A G7 country can not rely on plundering resources. Diversified, value-added economical activity is where it's at.
Surely, Canada should not follow the path of other oil and resource rich countries and brush all considerations aside in search of a quick buck. It is an oft noted paradox that wealthy resources in practise, in the long run, have an adverse effect on economic and social development.

[Subotan]

I posted this in the EB Tavern yesterday, as I thought that it was both an excellent article, and that Meth would like it.

<3 George Monbiot btw

[KukriKhan]

Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars


So, it's actually "Teh Evile NORTH Americans Still...."?

Still, I get your point; the greatest insult you can offer a Canadian is: "You're just like the Americans".


--------

Funny thing about trees. Plant new ones, and they grow, too. Toxic waste containment, on the other hand, needs looking to, it sounds.

[rory_20_uk]

If undertake carefully it could be OK - but probably not profitable as a consequence.

At the moment it is a similar process to what is happening to the Rainforests.

Roll on Nuclear / solar / hydro / geothermal power!

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I posted this in the EB Tavern yesterday, as I thought that it was both an excellent article, and that Meth would like it.

<3 George Monbiot btw

what does "<3" mean anyway?

[Subotan]

It's like a heart, so it's similar to love. Ofc, I don't actually love hiom, but he's my favourite journalist, and I always read his articles.

[Furunculus]

ah, i see.

in that case i believe Monboit to be an:

- | - |
-( )o( )
- || ||

[KukriKhan]

It's like a heart, so it's similar to love. Ofc, I don't actually love hiom, but he's my favourite journalist, and I always read his articles.

*headsmack*

I've been reading it: "less than 3" for years, and never understood.

D'uh.

[Subotan]

ah, i see.

in that case i believe Monboit to be an:
Meh. He's tried to put John Bolton under citizen's arrest once, so he's hardly a namby pamby liberal without the balls to do the things he preaches.

*headsmack*

I've been reading it: "less than 3" for years, and never understood.

D'uh.
Where did you learn that rubbish? Mathematics?

[Furunculus]

"The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush."
ah, 'multilateralism', consensus must have become a dirty word of recent times then?

"The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works."
i love these great moral judgements, given with any explanation or rational for how the judgement was assessed.

"In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this."
a nation that refuses to sign up for targets it has no intention of achieving, how refreshing, i could only wish that more kyoto signitories were as honest.

"Never mind special measures; it won't accept even an equal share."
an equal share of wealth re-distribution?

"By demonstrating that climate sanctions aren't worth the paper they're written on, it threatens to render any treaty struck at Copenhagen void."
so the enforcement mechanisms never worked then, but we should all just pretend that they really did?

"At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations."
so a unanimous decision was required, and they refused to agree, damn them!

"The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th."
again, policy somewhat in advance of the demonstrated science methinks, lets come back in six months and see if those metrics are still a valid way of stopping anthropogenic climate change.

"In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans."
ooh, politics, how nasty!

"A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth."
LOL

"But such is the fragile nature of climate agreements that one rich nation – especially a member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries – could scupper the treaty. Canada now threatens the wellbeing of the world."
need a new enemy George, to focus the minds of the proles on the coming revolution, necessary now that saint obama runs the US?

"By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark."
thanks, but i've had my fill of doom-laden projections of the future based on worst-case modeling that fails to include a host of other pertinant modifiers.

"The biggest leaseholder in the tar sands is Shell, a company that has spent millions persuading the public that it respects the environment. The other great greenwasher, BP, initially decided to stay out of tar."
oh those baddies! *shakes fist*

"Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. "
The British right? I gotcha this time, did-n-i, can't fool me!

"The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan."
Think of the cuddly animals!

"I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada."
That's it boys and girls, the battle lines are drawn, the high-priest of alarmism/marxism has spoken. Get ready for the revolution.

[drone]

Obligatory (language warning)
Blame Canada (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7UKllR0Edo)

[Subotan]

I'm an oil baron and I'm okay
I dig all night and I steal all day

I cut down trees, I rip up dirt
I turn Canada 'to a lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go chopping
And have buttered wildlife for tea

I tear down trees, I destroy and burn
I love to crush wild flow'rs
I put on devil's clothing
And put hippies behind bars

I burn down trees, I poison natives
Thanks to the sands of tar
I wish I'd been Arabian
Just like my dear Abdull-ah

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a heaping mound of Bull****, a rant unbound by reason or facts or objectivity, overflowing with rhetoric to make up for the lack of factual arguments.

Tar Sands is simply the enviro's latest rallying point.

Here's the deal; companies dig and drill up oil mixed with other components. Then they refine it, and it's oil. Canada doesn't have such nigh on impossible regulations as the EPA, so it's a target for environmentalists. Yeah, some parts don't look nice. The 'pollution' is hype, grossly exaggerated. I suppose we could just pay more money to Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist whack job places so every square inch of the continent is kept pristine.

Because of reasonable regulations, Canada has an abundance of oil, which puts it's people in a good position. They also supported tar sands even when it wasn't profitable, so they would be operational when it was profitable.

Of course, the enviro's don't want anybody to have oil, so they scream and rant, as displayed here. They want the oil to just sit there, unused, while energy prices and the cost of living rise. So they scream these falsities about governments acting sensibly and not heed their alarmist screeching.

CR

[Sigurd]

Yeah... My company is going to bring up our share of this "dirty oil".
We are not going to dig for it like the Canadians do. We are going to use our North Sea technology, drilling wells to it. I have seen the presentation and it involves steam in a closed system. There will not be any large deposits of toxic water.
There are still some issues that needs ironing out, and if we should be able to pump CO2 back down into the wells or store it in some other way. This technology is new and is being developed.

My company has established a research centre in Alberta to see if some new technology, especially for these kinds of operations can be developed.

Some info about this project (http://www.statoil.com/en/EnvironmentSociety/Sustainability/2007/GoingNorth/Pages/default.aspx#/OilSand/)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pretty ridiculous article unfortunately.

[Megas Methuselah]

I TOLD YOU SO!!! KLANADA!!!! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=53&pictureid=2031 :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



( :clown: )

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pretty ridiculous article unfortunately.Tsk. When we Euros patronisingly condemned the US of Bush, where were the Canadians to stand up for their southern neighbours, eh?
Yet, here you, Rabbit and others are, standing up for the evil empire to your north. :no:


With that Nobel prize winning Marxist in the Oval Office we can't possibly scold the Yanks. (For now..)
So the Canucks will have to stand in. Bring down that neo-liberal, neo-colonial fascist Harper, says I!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/02/embarrassing-canadian-corrupt-petro-state
Yes, Canada's record on carbon emissions is disgraceful, shameful, loathsome etc. The tar sands of northern Alberta (http://www.tarsandswatch.org/) are an international scandal. But the problem is not in a former Prius of a country turning into a Hummer. Canada's dilemma is much more interesting that that. It is the decline of a democracy (partly as its media died, thank you Conrad Black) and the descent of a nation into a political stasis, and it could happen to any country that doesn't mind the political store. What takes place when a nation can't decide on a government and lets a rightwing minority, quivering with hate, have just enough power?


Catastrophe, that's what.


Countries supposedly get the government they deserve. I'm not sure Canada deserved Harper. Canadians can agree with Judge Monbiot's assessment but ask the court to take into account our previous, as Rumpole would say.


First, no one disagrees more with Harper's refusal to slow climate change than Canadian voters. Indeed, more than three-quarters of Canadians say they are embarrassed that Canada hasn't taken an international lead on the issue, a recent poll revealed (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-chagrined-over-status-as-climate-change-dawdlers/article1372296/).


Even Albertans – home of the tar sands because they need the money and who is to say them nay – agree on this. Quebeckers, the sophisticates of the nation, are 86% in favour of Canada taking action. Toronto, while suffering economically, is maniacally devoted to hemp, bicycling and meticulous recycling rules. We hate green garbage incompetents. We love the Kyoto protocol, we want to prostrate ourselves in Copenhagen next month, but until we make our mind up about whether to make Michael Ignatieff prime minister, we can't.
May I humbly beg for patience with my country, which is stuck like a beaver in a dam of its own making.


Second, Canadians are still smart and decent. Only the government hews to the party line. On every issue, from abortion rights to rendition for torture to fair treatment of non-white citizens who had the temerity to take a holiday and can't come home because they lost weight and don't quite look like their passport photo (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/659270), Harper is determined to turn Canada into America-lite. He doesn't mean the America of Obama. He means the America of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, with its private affluence and public squalor.


American travellers used to shove a Canadian flag on their backpack for better treatment overseas. I'm sorry that the reverse has happened and Canadians now switch the conversation to Obama as quickly as possibly before the subject of clubbing seals arises.
We have shamed our better natures. But we Canadians will rid ourselves of Harper and rise again to be the decent and intelligent nation you Brits once patronised with such delight.

[Reverend Joe]

Pollution is the solution. Canada has it right, except for the part where they try to contain the toxic waste... let the waste go free!

[Subotan]

Nobody appreciated my cover-song...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tsk. When we Euros patronisingly condemned the US of Bush, where were the Canadians to stand up for their southern neighbours, eh?
Yet, here you, Rabbit and others are, standing up for the evil empire to your north. :no:


With that Nobel prize winning Marxist in the Oval Office we can't possibly scold the Yanks. (For now..)
So the Canucks will have to stand in. Bring down that neo-liberal, neo-colonial fascist Harper, says I!

I might be a tad more convinced if such articles actually appeared in Canadian papers, not as condescending screeds in leftist British papers. And they didn't include such ridiculous statements as "The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal." :rolleyes:

Also, didn't Canada already re-elect Harper once? That's the only poll that matters. Not one opinion poll, and certainly not a couple leftist enviros ranting in a British paper, which is everything you've provided so far.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I was going to respond after I read the article, but scrolling through I didn't think that I could say anything more accurate than this.


What a heaping mound of Bull****, a rant unbound by reason or facts or objectivity, overflowing with rhetoric to make up for the lack of factual arguments.


Harper may not be the greatest Prime Minister that Canada has ever had, but he is damned good at governing the country properly. And frankly, for Canada that makes a nice change from previous administration. Harper was re-elected by Canadians once, and current polling has him in majority territory, regardless of his abject lack of charisma. That says something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I might be a tad more convinced if such articles actually appeared in Canadian papersThis week in Canada's tamest paper, the Globe and Mail:
Dear citizens of Canada,


Like most of the world's people, I have always held your nation in high regard. Yours is one of the best-loved countries on Earth, renowned for being friendly, peaceful and responsible. Your government is now burning this goodwill.


After abandoning the commitments the previous government made under the Kyoto Protocol, ensuring that Canada will be the only signatory to wildly miss its targets, the Harper administration is now sabotaging the climate talks that will culminate in Copenhagen next month.
During the negotiations in Bangkok in October, developing nations were so dismayed by Canada's wrecking tactics that most of them walked out while your officials were speaking. In Barcelona this month, non-governmental organizations attending the talks presented Canada with their Fossil of the Week award: Yours was the country that had done the most to prevent an agreement from being reached.


The excuses made by the Canadian government for its filibustering and obstruction become more feeble by the day. As I understand his current position, your Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, will not contribute to an international treaty until his government knows what its domestic policies will be, and he will not formulate its domestic policies until there's an international treaty. He appears to be seeking to delay and weaken any international agreement, while claiming that there is no point in setting strong national targets if the rest of the world isn't pulling its weight.
Canada's tactics have caused shock and revulsion everywhere. They are dragging your good name through the mud. Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to your international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.
No one who has followed this process has any doubt about which interests the government is protecting. The Canadian oil sands are a threat hanging over the whole world. The extraction and processing of this material is so polluting that it makes crude oil look green. Canada already has almost the highest per-capita greenhouse-gas emissions in the world. The full-scale exploitation of the oil patch threatens to turn your beautiful country into the dirtiest country on Earth.
The oil-sands industry is causing damage out of all proportion to its value – not only to the world's ecosystems but also to Canada's.


Oil has a politics all of its own: To extract it, you must close your eyes and ears to the people you are harming. As the Nigerians, the Iraqis, the Russians and the Ecuadoreans can testify, this process brutalizes a nation. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample your civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.


No one who has seen images of the oil-sands operations can quite believe what Canada is doing to its own land. No one can quite believe that this prosperous country is treating its aboriginal peoples like Nigeria treats the Ogoni of the Niger Delta. The oil sands are turning Canada into a harder, crueller place.
This is the oil curse that so many other countries have experienced. Some people in Canada boast that the oil sands will make you a second Saudi Arabia. This may be true in more than one sense: They could turn you into an oil-dependent state whose politics revolt the rest of the world.


Your government's behaviour in the talks is so destructive and the development of the oil sands is so damaging to global efforts to prevent climate breakdown that I have decided to break my self-imposed ban on flying to travel to Canada.


I hope to add my voice to those pleading with your government to stop wrecking the negotiations. I hope to encourage you to rise up against an industry that is attacking the prospects of all the world's people and wrecking your national image. We know that at heart you are a decent and sensible people. Please don't disappoint us.



It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

Surely Canada can not let itself be treated as Nigeria?


Only two oil sands operations set to meet rules to deal with liquid tailings Posted: December 1, 2009
Section:

Simon Dyer and Joe Obad, December 1, 2009, Calgary, -- A comprehensive review of regulatory documents filed with the Alberta government suggests most oil sands mining operations will not comply with a new provincial law designed to limit increases in tailings, the toxic liquid waste produced by oil sands mining operations.


"Two mines have proposed plans to start cleaning up the legacy of toxic tailings on the landscape," said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute. "It is troubling that other companies are not willing to make the same effort and have submitted plans that appear not to meet the directive rules."


The review conducted by the Pembina Institute and Water Matters found that only two oil sands operations reported they would meet the rules to reduce toxic tailings between 2011 and 2013 (the start date for binding rules to capture and start solidifying liquid tailings). The seven remaining operations submitted plans that will not comply with rules for reducing their production of liquid tailings by the first target date in 2011. Some companies submitted plans suggesting they may not meet the rules for tailings management for over 40 years.


Oil sands companies were required to submit tailings management plans by September 30, 2009, in accordance with the newly released Alberta Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) Directive 074: Tailings Performance Criteria and Requirements for Oil Sands Mining Schemes. The ERCB released the directive because of concerns that oil sands companies were not adequately addressing the clean up of tailings waste.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live. I think, Louis, that you are exaggerating. Whether it is intentional or whether your entire viewpoint on the situation comes from the article and a few minutes on Google, I respectfully think you need to perhaps consider some more options. I'm still deciding on the best article to post in response, but it might take a while.

[Subotan]

And they didn't include such ridiculous statements as "The tar sands of northern Alberta are an international scandal." :rolleyes:
I'd say it's an international scandal. Seeing as what those tar sands are doing to the global climate, international is the only way to describe it.


You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live.

Maybe we should ask someone who lives there, hm? Meth?

[Gregoshi]

Nobody appreciated my cover-song...
Oh I did. Yes I did! :laugh4:

:applause:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maybe we should ask someone who lives there, hm? Meth?

I have never revealed my current place of permanent residence on this forum, nor have I revealed my past ones. Don't presume. Besides, as far as I know Meth lives in Saskatchewan. Though I'm sure that you've lived there.

The tar sands aren't an international scandal. Their impact on the environment as opposed to their benefit is practically nonexistent, or at the very most is significantly overblown.

[Subotan]

Oh I did. Yes I did! :laugh4:

:applause:
Thanks :beam:

I have never revealed my place of permanent residence on this forum. Don't presume.
Apart from the fact that it says Deutschland as your, uh, location, and it has done for some time? It is not unreasonable to assume that you are living in Germany.


Besides, as far as I know Meth lives in Saskatchewan.
So?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Apart from the fact that it says Deutschland as your, uh, location, and it has done for some time? It is not unreasonable to assume that you are living in Germany.

Not entirely unreasonable, no. Still, it isn't safe to presume. Since you joined two years after I did it is possible you missed some of my earlier posts on the issue.


So?

He isn't in the same province, and is over 700 kilometers away. Without being disrespectful to him, I don't think that simple proximity gives him any more of an understanding of life in Alberta, especially since he doesn't necessarily directly benefit from the sands (being in Saskatchewan)

[Crazed Rabbit]

This week in Canada's tamest paper, the Globe and Mail:

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts. Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more. It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.


It is not Canada vs. the world, it is private Canadian and foreign interests vs Canadian citizens. Rogue corporations are plundering and destroying Canada.

Surely Canada can not let itself be treated as Nigeria?

You must be kidding. Such hyperbole is absurd. Rogue corporations? You're manufacturing hype out of thin air. Try some facts with your rhetoric next time. I'm not going to pay attention to outrageous statements that don't have anything in the way of facts backing them up.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts. Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more. It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.

Indeed. The Globe and Mail may well be one of the best papers in Canada, and indeed I read it regularly, but that doesn't make their opinion sections and guest pieces any more rational than anyone else's.

[KukriKhan]

It's about the "tailings", right? The leftover stuff containing heavy metals, that needs intense management to keep it from hurting flora and fawna (the twins I dated in the 70's from Indianapolis; there was this one time... *ahem*).

Screaming: "You have to stop mining!" is about as effective as "You have to stop driving!".

Not gonna happen. Better to direct attention to mitigation or conversion. Left-overs are always useful for something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live. I think, Louis, that you are exaggerating. Whether it is intentional or whether your entire viewpoint on the situation comes from the article and a few minutes on Google, I respectfully think you need to perhaps consider some more options. I'm still deciding on the best article to post in response, but it might take a while.I enjoy a certain lightheartedness of tone, with a few teases thrown in for good measure.

Underneath all that, I am afraid I am quite serious about this subject. I think Canada is undergoing a major ecological disaster. A major social disaster.

Canada is now the country with the highest Co2 emission per capita in the wotld. And the country that most obstructs international pollution agreements.

And what for? For the well-being of all Canadians? No. A few plunder and destroy Canada, like a plague of locusts, while the average Canadian will still be paying for cleaning it all up - if at all possible - for generations to come.

Oil has a logic all of its own. It is a dirty business. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.



CANADA: Govt Threatens Tar Sands Activists with Anti-Terror Laws
By Chris Arsenault


(http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48930)

VANCOUVER, Oct 20 (IPS) - The provincial government in Alberta, Canada is threatening to unleash its counterterrorism plan if activists continue using civil disobedience to protest the tar sands, Canada's fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent weeks, Greenpeace has staged three daring protests inside tar sands mines, temporarily shutting down parts of the world's largest energy project. On Oct. 3 and 4, activists blocked construction of an upgrader needed to refine heavy tar sands oil, belonging to Shell in Ft. Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Civil disobedience from Greenpeace, leading to 37 arrests, has enraged Alberta's conservative government. "We're coddling people who are breaking the law," complained Premier Ed Stelmach during a media scrum in early October.

"Premier Stelmach's public suggestion that he will use the 'force of the law to deal with these people' confirms his lack of knowledge of the limits of his authority and the clear rule that our system of justice cannot be interfered with or manipulated for political reasons," responded Brian Beresh, the defence lawyer representing arrested activists, at a news conference in Edmonton.

Legal scholars, including University of Alberta law professor Sanjiv Anand and Tom Engel of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, have criticised the provincial government for attempting to politicise legal proceedings.

"We're going to be working very closely with industry and our solicitor general will be reviewing all of the guidelines we have in place," said a visibly irritated Premier Stelmach in early October.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48930It is not far-fetched to describe the current events as a 'Nigeriasation' of Canada. Canada's foundations are a wee bit stronger than Nigeria, so let's say that Canada needs to look a bit more to Norway, and a bit less to Venezuela or Brazil.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm an oil baron and I'm okay
I dig all night and I steal all day

I cut down trees, I rip up dirt
I turn Canada 'to a lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go chopping
And have buttered wildlife for tea

I tear down trees, I destroy and burn
I love to crush wild flow'rs
I put on devil's clothing
And put hippies behind bars

I burn down trees, I poison natives
Thanks to the sands of tar
I wish I'd been Arabian
Just like my dear Abdull-ah That's hilarious. Very clever too.

Sorry, should've acknoledged you post earlier.

[Subotan]

Not entirely unreasonable, no. Still, it isn't safe to presume. Since you joined two years after I did it is possible you missed some of my earlier posts on the issue.

Fair enough, you probably did mention something before I joined.


He isn't in the same province, and is over 700 kilometers away. Without being disrespectful to him, I don't think that simple proximity gives him any more of an understanding of life in Alberta, especially since he doesn't necessarily directly benefit from the sands (being in Saskatchewan)
Still, a Canadian is more likely to be better informed about the situation than a Brit and a probable German (Unless of course, you are well informed), particularly as Meth will be most aware as to the effects on First Nation peoples.

Written by the same Brit who wrote the OP article, right? And with even less facts.
CR

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-urgent-threat-to-world-peace-is-%E2%80%A6-canada/

Those accursed facts, actually existing and all.


Most of his argument amounts to peer pressure and nothing more.
Huh? I don't quite understand, as I can't find any examples of that in the article.


It is just a leftist enviro pretending his fringe ideas are shared by a significant amount of people.
Cool, I'm on the fringe :2thumbsup:
Regardless, Climate Change denial is much more of a fringe movement than whatever George Monbiot says.


Indeed. The Globe and Mail may well be one of the best papers in Canada, and indeed I read it regularly, but that doesn't make their opinion sections and guest pieces any more rational than anyone else's.
True. But then, I would trust the opinion column in, say, the Daily Telegraph more than I do in the Sun, even though I read neither. There's a correlation between the respectability of the paper and that of the people who comment.

[Furunculus]

Also, didn't Canada already re-elect Harper once? That's the only poll that matters. Not one opinion poll, and certainly not a couple leftist enviros ranting in a British paper, which is everything you've provided so far.

CR

that is all the attention the great moonbat deserves; contempt.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Still, a Canadian is more likely to be better informed about the situation than a Brit and a probable German (Unless of course, you are well informed), particularly as Meth will be most aware as to the effects on First Nation peoples.

I didn't see you bowing down to quid's opinion in the switzerland thread :p


The original article posted was terrible. A bunch of hyperbolic statements and things like "chemicals are released into the streams" without mentioning quantity. A good article would put everything into perspective with other industries, have solid numbers meaningful numbers, etc. There is no frame of reference provided for the numbers that he did state, so they are useless.

I learned nothing from the article other than the fact that some people are very upset with the oil extraction in alberta.

[Meneldil]

Though I've read scary reports from what's happening there, this article doesn't show any fact or number. Not a single one. I know it's an opinion article, but you would expect some numbers or testimony. Here, we have nothing. The guy's simply not doing a very good work.

Then, it's full of average Canadian self-congratulatory myths, such as "Canadians are nice", "Canadians don't pollute", "Everybody loves Canadians", "Canada leads the way of this issue", or the ever worthy of a good laugh "The world cares about Canada".

[Crazed Rabbit]

I enjoy a certain lightheartedness of tone, with a few teases thrown in for good measure.

Underneath all that, I am afraid I am quite serious about this subject. I think Canada is undergoing a major ecological disaster. A major social disaster.

Why? Because some enviro's say so? Good grief man.


Canada is now the country with the highest Co2 emission per capita in the wotld. And the country that most obstructs international pollution agreements.

So what? It's not proven CO2 is the main reason besides the previous temperature increase.


And what for? For the well-being of all Canadians? No. A few plunder and destroy Canada, like a plague of locusts, while the average Canadian will still be paying for cleaning it all up - if at all possible - for generations to come.

Bull. Who do you think it getting high paying jobs? How many jobs are created in those communities to support those jobs? Canada will be destroyed because of some mining? What farcical claims.

It will certainly help all Canadians. The tar sands are a model of forward political thinking - being supported for decades by both ruling parties.


Oil has a logic all of its own. It is a dirty business. It creates a political class that owes its existence to a primitive and destructive industry. The industry will employ that class to trample civilized values: social justice, human rights, environmental protection, the common decencies we owe to other human beings.

Blah blah blah. Any facts to back up that libel? No, because it's nothing but rhetoric with no basis in reality.


Those accursed facts, actually existing and all.

Facts? Yes, he shows figures that CO2 emissions have increased. That politics have occurred. That it takes water to make oil. That certain companies are investing.

What he has no facts for are his allegations that the tar sands are environmentally hazardous or pollute or anything to back up his fundamental claim that the tar sands are harmful.


Huh? I don't quite understand, as I can't find any examples of that in the article.

Made explicit; most of his argument is that this thing is evil (terribly evil!) and so the decent people of Canada should have no part in it because no one will like them anymore.


Like most of the world's people, I have always held your nation in high regard. Yours is one of the best-loved countries on Earth, renowned for being friendly, peaceful and responsible. Your government is now burning this goodwill.

...Canada will be the only signatory to wildly miss its targets,... developing nations were so dismayed by Canada's wrecking tactics that most of them walked out while your officials were speaking. In Barcelona this month, non-governmental organizations attending the talks presented Canada with their Fossil of the Week award: Yours was the country that had done the most to prevent an agreement from being reached.

Canada's tactics have caused shock and revulsion everywhere. They are dragging your good name through the mud. Stephen Harper and Jim Prentice threaten to do as much damage to your international standing as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to that of the United States.
...The full-scale exploitation of the oil patch threatens to turn your beautiful country into the dirtiest country on Earth.

As the Nigerians, the Iraqis, the Russians and the Ecuadoreans can testify, this process brutalizes a nation.

No one who has seen images of the oil-sands operations can quite believe what Canada is doing to its own land. No one can quite believe that this prosperous country is treating its aboriginal peoples like Nigeria treats the Ogoni of the Niger Delta. The oil sands are turning Canada into a harder, crueller place.
... Some people in Canada boast that the oil sands will make you a second Saudi Arabia. This may be true in more than one sense: They could turn you into an oil-dependent state whose politics revolt the rest of the world.

Your government's behaviour in the talks is so destructive and the development of the oil sands is so damaging to global efforts to prevent climate breakdown that I have decided to break my self-imposed ban on flying to travel to Canada.

I hope to add my voice to those pleading with your government to stop wrecking the negotiations. I hope to encourage you to rise up against an industry that is attacking the prospects of all the world's people and wrecking your national image. We know that at heart you are a decent and sensible people. Please don't disappoint us.

All this ranting has proven nothing about the "dangers" of tar sands because they are without facts. What pollutants are there, how does that compare to other industries, what's the safe level?

The only support for tar sands being terrible or bad is rants by enviros. If you strip away the rhetoric, there's nothing there. It's a hollow man, blustering arguments on the outside and underneath no real reason for reasonable people to be upset.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

What he has no facts for are his allegations that the tar sands are environmentally hazardous or pollute or anythingThe extraction of tar sands creates many toxic and hazardous by products.

That is why the - very oil industry friendly - Alberta government has enacted pollution regulation.

Only two out of nine oil companies even intent to meet this very basic Alberta regulation.

Most of Canada's oil sands (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/miners-expect-cleanup-delays/article1385146/#) miners are unlikely to meet new timelines for cleaning up the vast volumes of toxic effluent they produce, according to a new analysis of corporate regulatory filings. Some projects, including Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s Horizon and Imperial Oil Ltd.'s Kearl, which has not yet been built, will be at least a decade late in meeting provincial criteria designed to speed the processing of liquid tailings, a pair of environmental groups found after scrutinizing 900 pages of plans.


The industry has already produced tailings waste ponds the size of downtown Vancouver. Their presence - and growth - have helped generate widespread environmental opposition to the oil sands.
Although companies say they are working hard to diminish their environmental footprint, only two of nine oil sands mines have sketched out a way to meet the new tailings rules, a revelation that is likely to focus more scrutiny upon the industry.


"It's quite astonishing," said Simon Dyer, the oil sands program director at the Pembina Institute, which co-wrote the analysis with Water Matters, and wants many of the plans rejected. "I haven't seen regulatory applications before where companies submit things that apparently aren't compliant with the rules."
The reaction of the Alberta gov't has not been to forbid the operation of corporations that openly refuse to comply with the regulation of the very Albertan gov't.

Instead, Alberta threatens to use its anti-terror laws against Albertan citizens who demand their gov't enforces its democratically decided laws.

Linky to a Canadian quality paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/miners-expect-cleanup-delays/article1385146/

[Crazed Rabbit]

The extraction of tar sands creates many toxic and hazardous by products.

That is why the - very oil industry friendly - Alberta government has enacted pollution regulation.

Only two out of nine oil companies even intent to meet this very basic Alberta regulation.
The reaction of the Alberta gov't has not been to forbid the operation of corporations that openly refuse to comply with the regulation of the very Albertan gov't.

Instead, Alberta threatens to use its anti-terror laws against Albertan citizens who demand their gov't enforces its democratically decided laws.

Linky to a Canadian quality paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/miners-expect-cleanup-delays/article1385146/

:rolleyes:

No, that's according to environmental groups. And, big surprise, implementing stringent new regulations can't always be done swiftly. And the regulations came about because the tailings ponds look bad, not because of objective pollution dangers.

And they're threatening to use laws to crack down on people who, from what I've gathered, appear to be breaking into dangerous mining areas and interfering with safe work.

CR

[Subotan]

:rolleyes:

No, that's according to environmental groups.

LOL
I can't believe that you discredit information about the environment just because it comes from an Environmental NGO. Would you believe it if it was released by Shell?


And, big surprise, implementing stringent new regulations can't always be done swiftly.
That's not the problem. It's just a "We just don't care" attitude.


And the regulations came about because the tailings ponds look bad, not because of objective pollution dangers.
Water pollution that comes about as a result of mining and oil refinery (Of which this does both) is notorious for being particularly hazardous to both people and wildlife.. If the tailing ponds are unlined, then it will be seeping into the groundwater.


:rolleyes:
And they're threatening to use laws to crack down on people who, from what I've gathered, appear to be breaking into dangerous mining areas and interfering with safe work.

Note: Not intending to kill people. Not intending to spread terror. Not motivated by financial gain. And they're using anti-terror laws to prosecute them? :dizzy2: The worst that should be meted out is trespassing. And regardless of the laws, good for them. Direct action is sometimes the only to get people to listen.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Instead, Alberta threatens to use its anti-terror laws against Albertan citizens who demand their gov't enforces its democratically decided laws.

Linky to a Canadian quality paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/miners-expect-cleanup-delays/article1385146/

That link doesn't have anything about use of anti-terror laws that I can see. L

[Crazed Rabbit]

LOL
I can't believe that you discredit information about the environment just because it comes from an Environmental NGO. Would you believe it if it was released by Shell?

No. I don't see why partisan sources are the be all and end all.


That's not the problem. It's just a "We just don't care" attitude.

Ah, that you've studied or are just now making up? Because with all the other 'arguments' put forward by the enviros, I am inclined to think it is the latter.


Water pollution that comes about as a result of mining and oil refinery (Of which this does both) is notorious for being particularly hazardous to both people and wildlife.. If the tailing ponds are unlined, then it will be seeping into the groundwater.

So we're judging on notoriety now and not science? Now, I'm not familiar with the science behind tailings ponds, but I'd wager I'm more informed than you (having worked on an engineering project for an oil refinery waste treatment plants).


Note: Not intending to kill people. Not intending to spread terror. Not motivated by financial gain. And they're using anti-terror laws to prosecute them? :dizzy2: The worst that should be meted out is trespassing. And regardless of the laws, good for them. Direct action is sometimes the only to get people to listen.

They are intending to force political change by breaking the law and placing other people in danger. Not mere trespassing.

CR

[Husar]

Rogue corporations

language warning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY)

He also has some ideas who to tell about such rogue activities.

(I'm not saying you're like him, I was just reminded of it.)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Note: Not intending to kill people. Not intending to spread terror. Not motivated by financial gain. And they're using anti-terror laws to prosecute them? :dizzy2: The worst that should be meted out is trespassing. And regardless of the laws, good for them. Direct action is sometimes the only to get people to listen.

Wait, you mean like the individual/organization who detonated a few bombs in the Canadian West? It got a fair bit of press at the time, I believe over the summer.

[A Very Super Market]

As a Vancouverite (Required by law to be a tree-hugger), I must say that none of this business argued by Germans, Brits, Frenchmen, and Americans make much sense to me. What I can say is that oil sands are indeed a national issue, and not limited to the minds of hippies. Newfies hate them because they supersede their own oil rigs, the Quebecois hate them because they aren't Quebecois, and the usual debates happen along in the rest of the population. Oh, the natives hate them too, because the oil sands are extracted on their land.

Getting back the the Newfies, why aren't their reserves being pumped? Because they voted liberal. Alberta, where only one non-Conservative MP was elected, is the South of the North. The idea that Canada must support Harper (Who runs a minority government, btw) because he was voted in twice is ridiculous beyond description. A rather left-leaning democrat is in power in the US, but I'm certain that he's a bit controversial. I don't even know whether or not to feel insulted by the patronising tone here, or to simply accept that we're a bit like a troublesome growth on America's head. Given the state of our economy, that is debateable.

We live off our natural resources, yet we had been rooted to Britain, and thus the West, since day one. We are a developed nation that makes most of it's money from forestry, mining, extracting, and fur lack any major domestic companies. How exactly does an idiotic half-breed like us survive in this world? The fact that we could hardly manage if we chose not to exploit the land, combined with current enviromental issues means that yes, are as as divided as any other democratic nation on this Earth. Debate for us? Fine, but we are no Monaco, with uniform issues and 10 different last names. We are a dispersed, western, population, in the second largest country in the world.

[KukriKhan]

We live off our natural resources, yet we had been rooted to Britain, and thus the West, since day one. We are a developed nation that makes most of it's money from forestry, mining, extracting, and fur lack any major domestic companies. How exactly does an idiotic half-breed like us survive in this world? The fact that we could hardly manage if we chose not to exploit the land, combined with current enviromental issues means that yes, are as as divided as any other democratic nation on this Earth. Debate for us? Fine, but we are no Monaco, with uniform issues and 10 different last names. We are a dispersed, western, population, in the second largest country in the world.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I present: The Awakening.

Be very afraid.

[Tuuvi]

I don't really agree with the tone of the articles posted (I'm not a big fan of angry rants with an us vs. them, anyone who doesn't agree with me is evil attitude), but I feel that the oil sands operations aren't worth the trouble. There is still plenty of oil to be obtained using more conventional methods which in my opinion do less damage to the environment. To see the damage that oil sands mines do to the environment, all you have to do is look at the pictures:

http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/alberta-tar-sands.jpg

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg

http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/9/9/i/4/7/2/o/AlbertaOilSands.jpg

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't really agree with the tone of the articles posted (I'm not a big fan of angry rants with an us vs. them, anyone who doesn't agree with me is evil attitude), but I feel that the oil sands operations aren't worth the trouble. There is still plenty of oil to be obtained using more conventional methods which in my opinion do less damage to the environment. To see the damage that oil sands mines do to the environment, all you have to do is look at the pictures:

http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/alberta-tar-sands.jpg

This one is kind of pretty :beam:

Damaging the environment is a good thing.

[A Very Super Market]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present: The Awakening.

Be very afraid.

Believe me, I'm not trying to attempt anything of the sort.

[Megas Methuselah]

You're joking, aren't you? The provinces where these things take place, namely Alberta, are some of the best places in the world to live.

Come again?

EDIT: Here (http://www.ripplefx.ca/pdf/apegga12.pdf) ya go.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Come again?

EDIT: Here (http://www.ripplefx.ca/pdf/apegga12.pdf) ya go.

I didn't say that some people didn't have it bad. Not everything revolves around the natives, and hence that statement does nothing to disprove my claim. Alberta is not a bad place to live at all.

[Megas Methuselah]

...that statement does nothing to disprove my claim. Alberta is not a bad place to live at all, if you're white.

Ok, fixed; we're cool now.

[A Very Super Market]

Rather socialist Scandinavia + Iceland are rated as very good places to live as well. That title is meaningless for htis subject.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ok, fixed; we're cool now.

There are a fair amount of visible minorities in Alberta, and most of them do well. I understand where the natives are coming from, and to a large extent I sympathize, especially given my family's history of being on the repressed end, but I think that you and I have very different ways of addressing the problem. I don't believe that there is anything stopping a native from going places in Alberta. Yes, some things may hold one back, and it certainly is more difficult for a native, but it is possible. In this manner, you have many natives who succeed and, unfortunately, many who don't.

Regardless, even if natives are automatically at the bottom of the Albertan barrel, which is a complex issue and not entirely true one way or the other, that would still leave 95% of people leading good lives. Now, the oil sands are still relevant. Why? Because that industry gives Alberta a large portion of their cash. If it wasn't there, everybody would be worse off - and yes, I believe the natives would be as well.

[Megas Methuselah]

There are a fair amount of visible minorities in Alberta, and most of them do well.

Ok.


I understand where the natives are coming from, and to a large extent I sympathize, especially given my family's history of being on the repressed end, but I think that you and I have very different ways of addressing the problem.

Oh?



I don't believe that there is anything stopping a native from going places in Alberta. Yes, some things may hold one back, and it certainly is more difficult for a native, but it is possible. In this manner, you have many natives who succeed and, unfortunately, many who don't.

I don't disagree with you here, buddy. I just hope my links and knowledge of Aboriginal issues enlightened our dear Orgahs as to why the Canadian Aboriginals are such an impoverished minority. Yes, it's exceedingly difficult to get out of the hell-hole but, given a few special circumstances, it is indeed possible.

My dream, as is the call of some political theorists, is to see Canada reform its government to include representation of its minority nations (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike), to re-adress the severely outdated (and, thus, racist/sexist) Indian Act, settle all of the legal disputes with Canada, and to bring the Aboriginal standards of living up to the same level as the average Canadian.



Regardless, even if natives are automatically at the bottom of the Albertan barrel, which is a complex issue and not entirely true one way or the other, that would still leave 95% of people leading good lives.

Yeah, sure, though that 95% is a percentage of non-Aboriginal people, and not a percentage reflecting how many people are living well. In spite of this, I would still agree with your point that many people are positively affected from the oil sands.


Now, the oil sands are still relevant. Why? Because that industry gives Alberta a large portion of their cash. If it wasn't there, everybody would be worse off - and yes, I believe the natives would be as well.

Many Alberta Aboriginals are living in such squalid conditions right now that it really doesn't matter, man, though I am glad of the fact that some of them can find employment in the situation.

[Meneldil]

There was once an article on some Canadian newspaper, about a doctor living in Alberta, who got sued by 2 different oils companies because he wrote a report saying that he had been facing more and more cases of cancer in the area in the past few years.

All of a sudden, people (usually who work in the tar sand industry) stoped going to his office, and he moved to Ontario, after it was made clear that he couldn't do his job properly anymore. Then there was this other article which explained how the local natives were being bullied and force-expropriated by the companies, in a pure Brazil-like fashion.
I'll look up for them.

In any case, I don't buy the whole "tar sands are improving the life of the population". Sure, they might increase the wealth of Alberta (and thus, the life of some people living there), and of some companies. But I don't think people who live around the places where tar sand is exploited are better off, white or non white alike. Forests are burned down, water ponds are polluted, natural species disappear, the list goes on.
Clearly a case of nigeriaizaition, as Louis pointed out. These companies work in complete secrecy, hunt down journalists and whoever might oppose them, don't respect national laws and regulations, and bully the local population in order to get rid of any possible issue. EMFM, I'm surprised you refuse to see this, despite claiming to be quite aware of what's going on in Canada: when I was there, it was a big issue, that made the headline quite often on national newspapers. I know you hate environmentalists, but in this case, I'd say you're openly being blind, just because you don't want to agree with any left-wing-fringe-envo's-nutjobs, while it's actually a problem brought up by a lot of people, both from the left and from the right.

I have not much issues with tar sands themselves. We'll need to exploit them at some point anyway, and it's going to be a polluting process. The thing is, from all I've read, it's currently being done by companies who work as if they were in Vietnam, Nigeria or China. Not only that shouldn't be tolerated, but that makes Canada and Canadians look like fools.

[Samurai Waki]

There was once an article on some Canadian newspaper, about a doctor living in Alberta, who got sued by 2 different oils companies because he wrote a report saying that he had been facing more and more cases of cancer in the area in the past few years.

All of a sudden, people (usually who work in the tar sand industry) stoped going to his office, and he moved to Ontario, after it was made clear that he couldn't do his job properly anymore. Then there was this other article which explained how the local natives were being bullied and force-expropriated by the companies, in a pure Brazil-like fashion.
I'll look up for them.

I remember this article as well. The Tribes that lived near the Tar Sands were reported as having an abnormally high percentage of it's people either coming in or dying from Thyroid Related Issues (including Cancer). And that was in like 2006, can't believe nothing still has been done.

[Sigurd]

Not all of the oil companies in the area are evil. :bow:

[Ironside]

For those interested National Geographic got an article about it here (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1).

For size, check out google maps. It's way larger than any open mining pit operation in the world btw.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Most people agree that the former Soviet Union caused immense ecological disaster, that will prove costly for generations to come, or can nit be repaired within a human timescale at all. People agree too that China has massive ecological problems.

Few will believe that Canada is following in their wake. Only commies are thought to ruin the environment with utter disregard for human, environmental and social consequence.

At a massive 540,000,000 cubic meters in volume, Canada’s largest dam is second in size only to China’s Three Gorges Dam. But unlike that world-famous utility structure, the monumental Syncrude Tailings Dam near Fort McMurray, Alberta, doesn’t generate electricity or attract the attention of tourists.

It’s an industrial processing dam that holds back a thick soup of fine tailings, a by-product of oil sands extraction. These tailings and the ponds that contain them are a common feature of surface-mined oil sands facilities. Managing these artificial ponds requires the construction of dams, many of which are large enough to be visible from space.The world's second largest dam contains toxic waste.

It is visible from outer space. It is the world's largest construction, capital site. It looks like Coruscant.

Canada has always had mining operations. In the early 20th century, farmers started to complain about the devastating effects the disposal of waste in the water had on their production. Since then, large lakes have been build that store the toxic waste. And industry has bought numerous 'scientific' reports that show that this toxic waste isn't dangerous at all, merely un unaesthetical sight. (Then why don't they use it for drinking water or stop building all these terribly expensive storage bassins)

The extraction of this tar sand oil is very disruptive. Soil has to be stripped 50-100 meters deep of an area the size of England. The process to extract the oil is very water intensive. It is the most polluting form of oil extraction. This water is not processed, it is simply stored in enormous open air lakes. The damagesare left there for future genrations to sort out.

At its core, this is not about extraction or not. It is about keeping the damage down as low as possible. And about who pays for this damge. As it stands, the profits are for the mining corporations. The costs are socialized. Canadians wil have to pay for generations to clean it all up. This cleaning up is more costly than the profits in the first place. (In fact, Canada would be better off to just pay the mining corporations several hundreds of billions of dollars outright, on the condition they do not extract the oil. Canada will have to pay this anyway to clean up after the plunderers have left, but won't have to pay the price in social and environmental destruction that can not be repaired)

http://www.petropolis-film.com/#//

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See, if the storage of the oil tailings has negative effects, we should be able to build a causal chain of events. That it what needs to be shown. I believe it, but talking about how the lakes "are visible from space" is just rhetoric.

Nuclear power is safe and the waste is stored safely, but I am sure there are articles otu there about how it won't fully decay for '100 million years' etc etc.

[Mooks]

Would you be able to see the mining operation from space? Seems like the black wasteland that will be the mining field would blend in nicely with the white snow and forests.

I can see why the canadians are going to do it, thats alot of oil (127 billion I think I read), but I sure feel sorry for the natives. As I wouldnt want to live anywhere around that area.

I also feel sorry for Bambi and all the little bunny rabbits

[Meneldil]

For those interested National Geographic got an article about it here (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1).

For size, check out google maps. It's way larger than any open mining pit operation in the world btw.


Fringe evil nutjob envo's propaganda.

[KukriKhan]

Once we strip the emotion out of the discussion, what we're left with (I think) is poorly-written lease agreements. If we take as given that mining has and will occur, and it is always messy and unsightly, can we not write in mandatory mitigating or recovery conditions?

Like: "You can mine the tar sands, but within 10 years of the beginning of that operation, you must restore the area to its original state (or 90% or 75% of its original state, whatever is agreed is desireable). Cut down a forest? Re-plant a new one in its place. And so on."

Then the onus of "small footprint" is on the developers, not the citizens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My dream, as is the call of some political theorists, is to see Canada reform its government to include representation of its minority nations (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike), to re-adress the severely outdated (and, thus, racist/sexist) Indian Act, settle all of the legal disputes with Canada, and to bring the Aboriginal standards of living up to the same level as the average Canadian.

You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

Segregation is rubbish for everyone involved, regardless of whether you are American or Welsh.

[CrossLOPER]

*headsmack*

I've been reading it: "less than 3" for years, and never understood.

D'uh.
<3s Kukri

[Tellos Athenaios]

Like: "You can mine the tar sands, but within 10 years of the beginning of that operation, you must restore the area to its original state (or 90% or 75% of its original state, whatever is agreed is desireable). Cut down a forest? Re-plant a new one in its place. And so on."


But realistically that doesn't help or compensate for one bit. The forests there are not some Finnish or Swedish production forests: the Canadian forests & their ecosystems the aboriginals care about are forests that required thousands of years to build up and are not going to be replaced within a mere generation.

Once cut down they will, again, require thousands of years to build up. Probably longer if some human involvement of ‘aiding’ the forest occurs: that will only make things worse. (FYI: once upon a time there were scientists who thought: let's emulate a biosphere, let's recreate it. It was one big lesson in humility for the scientists since they got it all wrong.) In the meantime of course the aboriginals have lost forest, have they not?

Similarly as long as the tar sands remain relatively undisturbed the toxic chemicals and so on remain basically undisturbed and are if still toxic at least a not quite as dangerous since they are relatively isolated from the environment. (Being in heavy tar sand means they don't start moving around too much throughout food chains and so-on; which is where these chemicals can and will do real damage.) By contrast the waste that will be created by extracting the oil from the tar sands will be faaar more toxic because the chemicals will be left in a far more concentrated substance (waste). Far more dangerous because these higher concentrations make it easier for a person to be poisoned beyond what the human body can cope with (e.g. cancer, liver malfunction, nervous damage, increased risk of malformed limbs or disfunctional organs in newborn babies, hormone disruptions).

EDIT: For an interesting comparison. Just suppose that someone would discover a massive amount of oil/gas right below Jerusalem. And furthermore suppose the only way to get to that oil would effectively mean to destroy the holy sites in Jerusalem.

Do you think the offer of "well, you know if we just rebuild this stuff in, say, 10 years then it's okay?" would work? I doubt it: this is not just about the mere fact these are considered holy places by many (and therefore it would be sacrilege to destroy them) but also about the fact that nobody in his right mind is going to believe that whatever substitute put in place 10 years later will in effect be the same.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But realistically that doesn't help or compensate for one bit. The forests there are not some Finnish or Swedish production forests: the Canadian forests & their ecosystems the aboriginals care about are forests that required thousands of years to build up and are not going to be replaced within a mere generation.

Once cut down they will, again, require thousands of years to build up. Probably longer if some human involvement of ‘aiding’ the forest occurs: that will only make things worse. (FYI: once upon a time there were scientists who thought: let's emulate a biosphere, let's recreate it. It was one big lesson in humility for the scientists since they got it all wrong.) In the meantime of course the aboriginals have lost forest, have they not?

They aren't required to replace it with the same:



Approximately 20% of Alberta's oil sands are recoverable through open-pit mining, while 80% require in situ extraction technologies (largely because of their depth). Open pit mining destroys the boreal forest and muskeg. The Alberta government requires companies to restore the land to "equivalent land capability". This means that the ability of the land to support various land uses after reclamation is similar to what existed, but that the individual land uses may not necessarily be identical.[45] In some particular circumstances the government considers agricultural land to be equivalent to forest land. Oil sands companies have reclaimed mined land to use as pasture for wood bison instead of restoring it to the original boreal forest and muskeg. Syncrude asserts they have reclaimed 22% of their disturbed land.[46]

But most of Canada is forest ~:shrug:

Tearing down forests is a shame, but you have to weigh in the benefits.


Similarly as long as the tar sands remain relatively undisturbed the toxic chemicals and so on remain basically undisturbed and are if still toxic at least a not quite as dangerous since they are relatively isolated from the environment. (Being in heavy tar sand means they don't start moving around too much throughout food chains and so-on; which is where these chemicals can and will do real damage.) By contrast the waste that will be created by extracting the oil from the tar sands will be faaar more toxic because the chemicals will be left in a far more concentrated substance (waste). Far more dangerous because these higher concentrations make it easier for a person to be poisoned beyond what the human body can cope with (e.g. cancer, liver malfunction, nervous damage, increased risk of malformed limbs or disfunctional organs in newborn babies, hormone disruptions).

What are these toxic chemicals, where are they leaking out, and how do they cause diseases? Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In any case, I don't buy the whole "tar sands are improving the life of the population". Sure, they might increase the wealth of Alberta (and thus, the life of some people living there), and of some companies. But I don't think people who live around the places where tar sand is exploited are better off, white or non white alike. Forests are burned down, water ponds are polluted, natural species disappear, the list goes on.

Then why, pray tell, are the individuals in the region generally voting for parties who will keep the sands going? That aside, they do give the average Albertan better infrastructure, better social programs, and better tax rates. Admittedly there could be some problems with people living in the immediate area, and those could be addressed, but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

Companies using illegal tactics is another argument altogether, and I would personally argue it is being exaggerated. I fail to see anything illegal in the doctor incident, for example, unless you can find a link proving otherwise and providing the information.



EMFM, I'm surprised you refuse to see this, despite claiming to be quite aware of what's going on in Canada: when I was there, it was a big issue, that made the headline quite often on national newspapers. I know you hate environmentalists, but in this case, I'd say you're openly being blind, just because you don't want to agree with any left-wing-fringe-envo's-nutjobs, while it's actually a problem brought up by a lot of people, both from the left and from the right.

I am, and I've seen all of the headlines, read the articles. I'm not being openly blind - I just disagree with shutting down the tar sands. They are very, very important to the Albertan economy, and they need to be kept going for that economy to survive in the present state. Sure, some environmental safeguards need to be put in place, but that is another issue altogether. Alberta is a happening place, and the oil is what's causing that. From an economic point of view, the tar sands need to be exploited.


You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

That is my view also, but unfortunately many will resist.

[Tellos Athenaios]

They aren't required to replace it with the same:

But most of Canada is forest ~:shrug:

Tearing down forests is a shame, but you have to weigh in the benefits.

Understandably so. But my point is not so much whether or not you agree with the general idea of cut down forest -> plant trees -> everybody happy? My point is that this is easy to say but does not work in practice for various reasons:
(a) The plant trees part yields an inferior result to the original that was cut down
(b) And you do not happen to care about that forest, but the aboriginals do: it is their neighborhood. (By contrast Minarets in Switzerland is a positively minor deviation from local architecture yet that is now a banned feature...?)
(c) And the fact that aboriginals loose income, livelihood, and what else and that some random trees by some random company does not compensate for that.

It is in other words a cheap excuse and not a real compensation program: a $0,02 for the environmentalists so they hopefully shut up.


What are these toxic chemicals, where are they leaking out, and how do they cause diseases? Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?

It starts with the substance itself: there are many toxic ‘crude oil’ components in it. Now some of them are of the ‘less toxic than others’ type (i.e. bitumen) but the real problem is not _that_ they are toxic but that they tend up to accumulate in the body of whatever animal swallows it. And IIRC these tar sands usually contain metal oxides as well. Now these crude-oil types and oxides are passed on from prey to predator in the foodchain and because humans tend to consume a lot of fatty animals as well as living long and being generally the top of that foodchain the negative effects tend to come out in us.

A more direct danger comes from refining the crude oils; a process which tends to emit H2S (distinguishable by its smell of rotten eggs). H2S is quite toxic. But H2S is more commonly known for the fact that is a prim offender/cause of acid rain: it is readily oxidized to H2SO4.

[KukriKhan]

You make good points about forest re-plants, so I concede that it's an imperfect solution.

So then, the issue is one of ownership, yes? We have old-growth Redwood groves in northern California. Beautiful place. When I moved here in the late 80's, there was a substantial "Save The Redwoods!" campaign; people tying themselves to trees, disabling logging machines, etc.

Didn't work. Ya know what DID work? Wanna save the trees? BUY the trees. Activists got some Hollywood rich guys to buy up a bunch of the land on which the redwoods stood. So they stand today.

You assert that the tar-sands land in Alberta belongs to Aboriginals. Is that true, according to Canadian law?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You assert that the tar-sands land in Alberta belongs to Aboriginals. Is that true, according to Canadian law?

I'll try and find you a link to that, but either way, the natives are working the sands (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=b4d4fc1c-49cf-4980-9864-c994de05e53a&k=3443) too.

[Sigurd]

EDIT: For an interesting comparison. Just suppose that someone would discover a massive amount of oil/gas right below Jerusalem. And furthermore suppose the only way to get to that oil would effectively mean to destroy the holy sites in Jerusalem.


Our technology makes it possible to drill horizontally. You don't actually need to sit right above the source to extract the oil.
Most of the tar sand oil lies too deep to dig it out with excavators and big trucks.

We had an animation showing how we will extract the bitumen of the tar sand without digging it out of the sand. Sadly it seems lost in our new branding process (http://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/Canada/Pages/default.aspx).
Basically we shoot steam into the wells and extract the oil/water. It runs through pipes to a separator which separates the oil from the water. The water returns to the well site where it is reheated and pumped back into the tar sand. Water is never stored in great lakes. It runs in a closed system.

Later we will be capturing any CO2 emission and store it. We have several large projects with CO2 capture which seems promising. A few rigs in the North Sea is already running with nearly zero CO2 emission.

A map over the Canadian tar sand area for you to play with.
(http://dev.polargeomatics.com/transportation/#app=d60b&da61-selectedIndex=2)

[KukriKhan]

Thanks for the map Sigurd. The place is huge.

[Meneldil]

Then why, pray tell, are the individuals in the region generally voting for parties who will keep the sands going? That aside, they do give the average Albertan better infrastructure, better social programs, and better tax rates. Admittedly there could be some problems with people living in the immediate area, and those could be addressed, but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

Wow, wow. There are dozens of reasons why people here would vote for the conservative. For one, a widely accepted rule in political studies is that the more far you are from the coast, the more people become conservative (which, in Canada's case, explain why usually liberals weight more in Québec, Ontario, and to a lesser level BC).
Assuming that it's okay because people still vote conservative is approximative at best.
Furthermore, "people" usually screw up big time. And it's even more likely when there is a crapload of money to be made quickly and easily, as it is the case now.



Companies using illegal tactics is another argument altogether, and I would personally argue it is being exaggerated. I fail to see anything illegal in the doctor incident, for example, unless you can find a link proving otherwise and providing the information.
It's not as if oil companies were well-known for using illegal tactics and going rogue whenever they have a chance, right?
Generalization apart, the fact that they do use illegal tactics, or at least, quite shady ones, is well documented. I read dozens of articles about it last year, and though some seemed quite on the fringe (either "ZOMG WE'RE DOOMED" or newspapers from Québec, that usually think anything from Canada is crap), I've also read some that seemed very serious, on the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and what not.
At least two of those happened to be published on Courrier International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courrier_International), I'll look up for them once I'll feel like browsing through my own archives.




I am, and I've seen all of the headlines, read the articles. I'm not being openly blind - I just disagree with shutting down the tar sands. They are very, very important to the Albertan economy, and they need to be kept going for that economy to survive in the present state. Sure, some environmental safeguards need to be put in place, but that is another issue altogether. Alberta is a happening place, and the oil is what's causing that. From an economic point of view, the tar sands need to be exploited.

That is not another issue altogether. I'm willing to admit that tar sands have to be kept going, even though doing so will probably harm the local environment and destroy the lands of the aboriginals. That is quite bad in itself, but heh, given that nobody comes up with a way to replace oil, and given that aboriginals can hardly make their voices heard, it will have to be done.
What Louis and some other people are bitching at is the way it is being done at the moment. So far, many people points to a complete lack of respect for the environment and the populations that used to live there. Maybe this is all environmentalists' propaganda. But if it's not, then Canada is not doing any better than Brazil, Nigeria or China.

[Subotan]

Nice Signature Louis :laugh4:

[Megas Methuselah]

You would be much better off demanding that the Canadian government revoke the Indian Act and integrate the Reservations into the rest of Canada. Realistically, the reason the remaining Natives are so impoversihed is because they are kept seperate from the rest of Canada.

Segregation is rubbish for everyone involved, regardless of whether you are American or Welsh.


That is my view also, but unfortunately many will resist.

Proposals such as this idiocy have been turned down in the past before. If the Canadian Government even mentioned such an action again, I'd go join the Mohawk Warrior Society and round up all the gangsters in the 'hood to do the same, despite their obvious vices, so angered would I be (and most of Aboriginal Canada, as well) over such an unjust act.

If the Aboriginals weren't so opposed to this, it could be seen as a wise thing to do, but this is not the case. Aboriginal nationalism is only going to grow stronger with time.


It starts with the substance itself: there are many toxic ‘crude oil’ components in it. Now some of them are of the ‘less toxic than others’ type (i.e. bitumen) but the real problem is not _that_ they are toxic but that they tend up to accumulate in the body of whatever animal swallows it. And IIRC these tar sands usually contain metal oxides as well. Now these crude-oil types and oxides are passed on from prey to predator in the foodchain and because humans tend to consume a lot of fatty animals as well as living long and being generally the top of that foodchain the negative effects tend to come out in us.

A more direct danger comes from refining the crude oils; a process which tends to emit H2S (distinguishable by its smell of rotten eggs). H2S is quite toxic. But H2S is more commonly known for the fact that is a prim offender/cause of acid rain: it is readily oxidized to H2SO4.

What about Sasaki's other question, though: Is the only way to stop them being leaked out to stop the mining?


but the sands themselves do improve Albertan lives and the Albertan economy.

The whole health care issue with the locals, though, is an issue that should be addressed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Our technology makes it possible to drill horizontally. You don't actually need to sit right above the source to extract the oil.
Most of the tar sand oil lies too deep to dig it out with excavators and big trucks.

The point I was trying to convey had not so much to do with a nice company with shiny new tech doing extremely neat things and basically saving the world. ~;) It was sort of an analogy with the practice of simply cutting down a forest and then ‘reclaiming’ it; a simple illustration of why that idea is basically flawed.

Still to the uninformed ears/eyes it seems a bit optimistic to assume that you can remove a heavy substance, pump in some gas/water and expect “nothing to break”. A similar story was once sold w.r.t. gas & Waddenzee. Suffice to say it turned out the theory did not actually deliver there (or rather: that the forecasts had been slightly too optimistic).

As for the question whether or not the only way to avoid pollution from these toxic chemicals is not to mine there: you are missing the point somewhat. These chemicals are already there: you just want to avoid these ending up in high concentration in some waste substance. At the moment these are simply diluted by the vast amount of sand/water/non-toxic components. What is needed is an effective long-term waste-disposal strategy; beyond merely dumping stuff into a pond (which simply results in a toxic layer of sediment on the bottom of the pond, hence it doesn't actually solve anything) which is what the current water-reclaiming idea of some companies amounts to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Proposals such as this idiocy have been turned down in the past before. If the Canadian Government even mentioned such an action again, I'd go join the Mohawk Warrior Society and round up all the gangsters in the 'hood to do the same, despite their obvious vices, so angered would I be (and most of Aboriginal Canada, as well) over such an unjust act.

If the Aboriginals weren't so opposed to this, it could be seen as a wise thing to do, but this is not the case. Aboriginal nationalism is only going to grow stronger with time.

Racism is also rubbish, and this is what you are describing. That your people should be kept seperate, and suffer as a result, because of their race.

What is unjust about making your people equal to everyone else?

You have even admitted that the reservations are what make your people impoverished, so get rid of them.

[KukriKhan]

Racism is also rubbish, and this is what you are describing. That your people should be kept seperate, and suffer as a result, because of their race.

What is unjust about making your people equal to everyone else?

You have even admitted that the reservations are what make your people impoverished, so get rid of them.

Not exactly racist; the Canadians have a different idea than the Yanks' "melting pot" theory. Their multi-cultural approach enables Quebec, for example, to be uniquely Quebec (and distinct from Ontario; no race-based differentiation there, rather lingual and cultural), and the Aboriginals to also be seen as "separate" whilst not segregated. A thin line of distinction there, I know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not exactly racist; the Canadians have a different idea than the Yanks' "melting pot" theory. Their multi-cultural approach enables Quebec, for example, to be uniquely Quebec (and distinct from Ontario; no race-based differentiation there, rather lingual and cultural), and the Aboriginals to also be seen as "separate" whilst not segregated. A thin line of distinction there, I know.

I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English. Let's not be so crude as to equate ethnicity and skin colour; the shade of your skin is no more relevant than that of your hair or eyes.

From Meth's posts and what I know of the situation and the legality, Natives are still very much segregated.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.Cursed racist Québécois, demanding they can speak their own language in their own country, and having the nerve too to ask to be adressed by their government in their mother tongue without so much as having to reply in the language of their massa.

Language fascism, says I. About time the native English language stands up to this vile imperialist policy with renewed economical repression.

[A Very Super Market]

Natives are not segregrated, at least not in respect to the term used for the American '50s style racism. Natives living outside the reserves live their lives as any other citizen. But the "bonuses" for natives exist only if they remain on their worthless reserves. The main problem with this idea is that as a response to the fear of assimiliation, it succeeds brilliantly, but is utterly useless inactually supporting the reserve residents. All the "bonuses" from living there are taken away if they leave, apart from very rare exceptions. And of course, the residents have terrible lives marked mainly by alcoholism.

As for Quebec, if British Columbians need to have French everywhere, why don't the Quebecois need to see cursed Anglais plastered everywhere? More fear of assimiliation. Again, the solution to one problem exacerbates the other. Canada is a messed up country too.

[Megas Methuselah]

Not exactly racist; the Canadians have a different idea than the Yanks' "melting pot" theory. Their multi-cultural approach enables Quebec, for example, to be uniquely Quebec (and distinct from Ontario; no race-based differentiation there, rather lingual and cultural), and the Aboriginals to also be seen as "separate" whilst not segregated. A thin line of distinction there, I know.

There is a difference between multiculturalism and multinationalism. For decades now, both Quebec and the First Nations have been screaming for both national recognition (semi-fulfilled in the Aboriginal case, I guess) and a multinational system of government. Do not forget that there are some 60-80 First Nations and other Aboriginal Nations, as well as more francophone nations than Quebec (Acadia, eh?).


Racism is also rubbish, and this is what you are describing. That your people should be kept seperate, and suffer as a result, because of their race.

What is unjust about making your people equal to everyone else?

You have even admitted that the reservations are what make your people impoverished, so get rid of them.

So you suggest that we abandon the last scraps of our nation-states and go live our lives in urban ghettoes with the rest of the Aboriginal peoples who don't live on reserves? That doesn't change anything, aside from a physical shift of positions. The main problem with Aboriginal peoples, especially First Nation peoples, is the horrifyingly widespread alcoholism, family dysfunctionalism (both resulting in physical, sexual, and mental abuse), and poverty. Being forced to enter urban Canada would not help two of the more important factors (alcoholism and family dysfunction), which are the primary issues that result in poverty; this has already been proven, as I've said, by the Aboriginals who are already living in urban areas.


I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English. Let's not be so crude as to equate ethnicity and skin colour; the shade of your skin is no more relevant than that of your hair or eyes.

From Meth's posts and what I know of the situation and the legality, Natives are still very much segregated.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.

Do you remember the situation in 1995 when Quebec came very, very, very, very close to seceding from Canada? This is how frustrated they are with Canada's attitude towards the minority nations in the state.

Btw, where have you heard about Quebec treating "Anglo-Saxons" as such? I do know that French is the primary language in the province, and that having your education in French is a law or something (?) meant to preserve the French language. Perhaps you see this as an attack upon "Anglo-Saxons"? It's more of a defence to help keep their province from assimilating into English-speaking society, as the French language is one their main factors behind their call to recognition as a nation. (interestingly, one could argue that this call for national recognition is relatively undermined by Canada's adoption of French as another official language of the country as a whole)


Cursed racist Québécois, demanding they can speak their own language in their own country, and having the nerve too to ask to be adressed by their government in their mother tongue without so much as having to reply in the language of their massa.

Language fascism, says I. About time the native English language stands up to this vile imperialist policy with renewed economical repression.

Haha, yeah. It's interesting, though, how you term the whole of Quebec as their own country. Don't forget that Canada was built on treaties with the First Peoples, and that in 1985 Quebec itself recognized the various First Nations (most significantly, the ones inhabiting the province of Quebec) as nations. Quebec's nationalism, very much like Anglo-Canada, is built on multi-culturalism and, since 1985, one could say multinationalism, as well. It's a messy situation not many people fully understand.


Natives are not segregrated, at least not in respect to the term used for the American '50s style racism. Natives living outside the reserves live their lives as any other citizen. But the "bonuses" for natives exist only if they remain on their worthless reserves. The main problem with this idea is that as a response to the fear of assimiliation, it succeeds brilliantly, but is utterly useless inactually supporting the reserve residents. All the "bonuses" from living there are taken away if they leave, apart from very rare exceptions. And of course, the residents have terrible lives marked mainly by alcoholism.

As for Quebec, if British Columbians need to have French everywhere, why don't the Quebecois need to see cursed Anglais plastered everywhere? More fear of assimiliation. Again, the solution to one problem exacerbates the other. Canada is a messed up country too.

Yeah, it is. PVC's call for the removal of "segregration" should be seen as nothing more than the opinion of some outsider who does not even understand the situation. Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart. Especially since minority nationals already form a large portion of Canada's population and, in the Aboriginal case, is expanding rapidly.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart.

There is no question that the reserve system needs to be changed, or perhaps totally abolished. On the other hand, it would need to be replaced with something that actually worked for everybody. That last part is, in my mind, the tricky bit.

EDIT: I understand your passion for this, but dismissing a different opinion as the opinion of an uneducated outsider is perhaps overkill, especially as there are many Canadians who agree with him. It would be perhaps wise to listen to the whole argument without resorting to ad hominem. Though I freely admit I have been guilty of this in the past, it may be worth it to learn from my mistakes.

[Megas Methuselah]

EDIT: I understand your passion for this, but dismissing a different opinion as the opinion of an uneducated outsider is perhaps overkill, especially as there are many Canadians who agree with him. It would be perhaps wise to listen to the whole argument without resorting to ad hominem. Though I freely admit I have been guilty of this in the past, it may be worth it to learn from my mistakes.

Yeah, you're probably right. But at least it can be understood that my "passion" for this is largely shared by all First Nations. It can be almost seen as by giving up our reserves, we may be giving up our very identity. This may not be true, but it certainly reflects why many First Nation people are this fanatic concerned about it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cursed racist Québécois, demanding they can speak their own language in their own country, and having the nerve too to ask to be adressed by their government in their mother tongue without so much as having to reply in the language of their massa.

Language fascism, says I. About time the native English language stands up to this vile imperialist policy with renewed economical repression.

Loius, in Canada everything has to be bi-lingual, except in Quebec where it's only in French, where teaching is only in French.

All Canadians should learn French, as should all English school children. It is the double standard that angers me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a difference between multiculturalism and multinationalism. For decades now, both Quebec and the First Nations have been screaming for both national recognition (semi-fulfilled in the Aboriginal case, I guess) and a multinational system of government. Do not forget that there are some 60-80 First Nations and other Aboriginal Nations, as well as more francophone nations than Quebec (Acadia, eh?).

Ah, but what proportion of the total population of Canada do they make up? Can they prosper without the Federal Government and the Anglophones? One of the facets of a Nation is the ability to determine one's own destiny.

If I were to use the definition of Nation that you do, then England would be composed of around 4-6 and the UK of 10+. There are some xenophobic ultra-nationalists here who might like that, but they're a minority and pretty much all burn with a deep hatred of all outsiders.


So you suggest that we abandon the last scraps of our nation-states and go live our lives in urban ghettoes with the rest of the Aboriginal peoples who don't live on reserves? That doesn't change anything, aside from a physical shift of positions. The main problem with Aboriginal peoples, especially First Nation peoples, is the horrifyingly widespread alcoholism, family dysfunctionalism (both resulting in physical, sexual, and mental abuse), and poverty. Being forced to enter urban Canada would not help two of the more important factors (alcoholism and family dysfunction), which are the primary issues that result in poverty; this has already been proven, as I've said, by the Aboriginals who are already living in urban areas.

"Nation-States" is a European term, and one that has been used to justify keeping your people on useless land that the rest of Canada doesn't want. The genius of the system is that they have enshrined this in Law as a privilage and convinced you that you have a "right" to live on the worst land. Get rid of the special legal status of aborigonals, and integrate your land into the rest of Canada and the Provincial and Federal Governments will suddenly find thier Urban and Rural poverty statistics going through the roof.

They'll no longer hanve any excuse or legal barrier to giving your people exactly the same standard of living as other Canadians.


Do you remember the situation in 1995 when Quebec came very, very, very, very close to seceding from Canada? This is how frustrated they are with Canada's attitude towards the minority nations in the state.

Peoples, not Nations. You cannot have more than one Nation in a State.


Btw, where have you heard about Quebec treating "Anglo-Saxons" as such? I do know that French is the primary language in the province, and that having your education in French is a law or something (?) meant to preserve the French language. Perhaps you see this as an attack upon "Anglo-Saxons"? It's more of a defence to help keep their province from assimilating into English-speaking society, as the French language is one their main factors behind their call to recognition as a nation. (interestingly, one could argue that this call for national recognition is relatively undermined by Canada's adoption of French as another official language of the country as a whole)

Canada became bi-lingual to please the French-speakers, who then became mono-lingual to upset the English-speakers. So, the English speakers just leave the province if they can afford it. It's a mini "brain drain" and it's caused by xenophobia. Ultimately, "cultural genocide" is very difficult, and the Canadian government is not in that business. If Canadians in Quebec were speaking less French and more English it's much more likely to be because of convenience than ideology.


Yeah, it is. PVC's call for the removal of "segregration" should be seen as nothing more than the opinion of some outsider who does not even understand the situation.

We have exactly the same problem here with the Welsh-speakers, united only by their hatred of the English, and of those Welsh who favour English over Welsh because of (as I said) convenience. They consider these people "traitors", and during the 1970's Welsh speakers engaged in acts of vandalism minor terrorism against English-speakers.

Did you know that the Welsh term for England is, "The Lost Land", even after 1600 years?

So, I have an idea about these sorts of cultural-ethnic clashes.


Abolishing the reserves and condeming the Franco-Canadians into mainstream Anglo-Canadian society would only serve to tear the country apart.

There's an old British saying from the Legends of King Arthur, "One Land, One King", it means that everyone should live together under one government and one Law. It doesn't mean that everyone should be the same. In this case it means that the Anglo-Canadians, Franco-Canadians and everyone else should integrate together, not that one should be subject to another.

[Megas Methuselah]

Ah, but what proportion of the total population of Canada do they make up? Can they prosper without the Federal Government and the Anglophones? One of the facets of a Nation is the ability to determine one's own destiny.

Nope. I don't know about Quebec, but the First Nations have no chance at prospering alone. Luckily, First Nation nationalism doesn't involve secession from Canada. As for the proportion, an article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science claims that "... close to one quarter of Canada's population can be claimed as 'minority nations.'" :shrug:



If I were to use the definition of Nation that you do, then England would be composed of around 4-6 and the UK of 10+. There are some xenophobic ultra-nationalists here who might like that, but they're a minority and pretty much all burn with a deep hatred of all outsiders.

The First Nations are generally grouped together as Aboriginal. Canada's trinational view of Aboriginal, French, and English, if you'll see it that way.



"Nation-States" is a European term, and one that has been used to justify keeping your people on useless land that the rest of Canada doesn't want. The genius of the system is that they have enshrined this in Law as a privilage and convinced you that you have a "right" to live on the worst land. Get rid of the special legal status of aborigonals, and integrate your land into the rest of Canada and the Provincial and Federal Governments will suddenly find thier Urban and Rural poverty statistics going through the roof.

They'll no longer hanve any excuse or legal barrier to giving your people exactly the same standard of living as other Canadians.

If the reserve land was so useless, then I might ask why, throughout the 20th century, Canada repeatedly stole reserve land and made it illegal for the bands to use the law to defend themselves. Besides, if people don't want to live on the reserves, they don't need to. A bit less than half currently live in rural centers. You can't force the rest to leave, however beneficial you might imagine it might be for them; it's their land and they won't give it up.



Peoples, not Nations. You cannot have more than one Nation in a State.


:dizzy2:

You seem to be confusing a nation and a state. A nation is merely a group of people tied together by common ground, be it history, language, or ethnic origin. There can certainly be multiple nations within a state. If that were not so, then why would Canada and Quebec recognize the First Nations as nations?

In spite the claims of many states as being single nation-states, that is just not true; most states are multinational.



Canada became bi-lingual to please the French-speakers, who then became mono-lingual to upset the English-speakers. So, the English speakers just leave the province if they can afford it. It's a mini "brain drain" and it's caused by xenophobia. Ultimately, "cultural genocide" is very difficult, and the Canadian government is not in that business. If Canadians in Quebec were speaking less French and more English it's much more likely to be because of convenience than ideology.

Language is a major issue to support Quebecois nationalism; something which is not the same with many Aboriginal people, as most speak English as their primary language anyways. Be that as it may, the adoption of French as an official language was only done to appease the Franco-Canadians and quiet down the call for national recognition within Quebec. It's a clever move that, in the long run, undermines Quebecois nationalism.



We have exactly the same problem here with the Welsh-speakers, united only by their hatred of the English, and of those Welsh who favour English over Welsh because of (as I said) convenience. They consider these people "traitors", and during the 1970's Welsh speakers engaged in acts of vandalism minor terrorism against English-speakers.

Did you know that the Welsh term for England is, "The Lost Land", even after 1600 years?

So, I have an idea about these sorts of cultural-ethnic clashes.


Be that as it may, the situations are different. Neither Quebec nor the First Nations are united solely by hatred of the Anglo-Canadians. And in the case of the First Nations, language isn't even a factor in Aboriginal nationalism.


There's an old British saying from the Legends of King Arthur, "One Land, One King", it means that everyone should live together under one government and one Law. It doesn't mean that everyone should be the same. In this case it means that the Anglo-Canadians, Franco-Canadians and everyone else should integrate together, not that one should be subject to another.

Minority nationalism will never let this happen. You must understand that what you suggest is a practical impossibility.


All Canadians should learn French, as should all English school children. It is the double standard that angers me.

Ugh. Learning French was such a pain the ***. Canada should never have adopted French as an official language, anyways; this can only serve to aggravate the various national and cultural minorities in the country who hate seeing one minority being placed above them (which is, btw, one of the major obstacles for minority nations in Canada).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. I don't know about Quebec, but the First Nations have no chance at prospering alone. Luckily, First Nation nationalism doesn't involve secession from Canada. As for the proportion, an article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science claims that "... close to one quarter of Canada's population can be claimed as 'minority nations.'" :shrug:

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent? Anyway, "nationalism" requires the ability to direct the nation's course; otherwise it's really just frustration. That was my point.


The First Nations are generally grouped together as Aboriginal. Canada's trinational view of Aboriginal, French, and English, if you'll see it that way.

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.


If the reserve land was so useless, then I might ask why, throughout the 20th century, Canada repeatedly stole reserve land and made it illegal for the bands to use the law to defend themselves. Besides, if people don't want to live on the reserves, they don't need to. A bit less than half currently live in rural centers. You can't force the rest to leave, however beneficial you might imagine it might be for them; it's their land and they won't give it up.

Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture? In any case, I'm not talking about forcing people to leave, simply about dissolving the reservations; a purely political issue, not a physical one.


You seem to be confusing a nation and a state. A nation is merely a group of people tied together by common ground, be it history, language, or ethnic origin. There can certainly be multiple nations within a state. If that were not so, then why would Canada and Quebec recognize the First Nations as nations?

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.


In spite the claims of many states as being single nation-states, that is just not true; most states are multinational.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.


Language is a major issue to support Quebecois nationalism; something which is not the same with many Aboriginal people, as most speak English as their primary language anyways. Be that as it may, the adoption of French as an official language was only done to appease the Franco-Canadians and quiet down the call for national recognition within Quebec. It's a clever move that, in the long run, undermines Quebecois nationalism.

You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.


Be that as it may, the situations are different. Neither Quebec nor the First Nations are united solely by hatred of the Anglo-Canadians. And in the case of the First Nations, language isn't even a factor in Aboriginal nationalism.

They may not be the same, but they are similar, and a major element of your ethnic identity is clearly a sense of injustice directed at the Canadian government. The basic psychology is clearly very similar, and to say otherwise is to do an injustice to the Welsh as well. Look up "Welsh knot".


Minority nationalism will never let this happen. You must understand that what you suggest is a practical impossibility.

Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.


Ugh. Learning French was such a pain the ***. Canada should never have adopted French as an official language, anyways; this can only serve to aggravate the various national and cultural minorities in the country who hate seeing one minority being placed above them (which is, btw, one of the major obstacles for minority nations in Canada).

There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

78% speak English as their primary daily language. Visible minorities come in at about 15% of the population. Two territories are majority aboriginal, and Nunavut is considered "the aboriginal territory", though obviously they don't have a cross-section of all of the tribes. Canada itself is about 4% Native American. The French Canadian population is best determined by language, since the census reports that most people in Quebec identify as Canadian, whereas a plurality in the mostly English New Brunswick report themselves as French. All provinces have British, French, Canadian, or Native American ancestry reported as a plurality except for Saskatchewan, where a plurality identifies as German. Of course, most of the people who answer British, French, German, Irish, etc. are really Canadian.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm


Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

They do have a territory essentially to themselves, Nunavut. 85% of the population there is native.


the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

The First Nations and Quebec have both been recognized as "distinct societies and nations within Canada" by various governments. Quebec was recognized as such only a couple of years ago by Prime Minister Harper, though of course they already had special status before that.


A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

Canada almost did less than fifteen years ago, and it may well do so in the next hundred years.


You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.

Not according to the PQ, sadly.



There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

I do recall many students outside of Quebec being upset at being forced to learn French. Aside from equalization payments and politicians being forced to pander to Quebec to win a majority government, that is probably the main reason for the casual quasi-dislike of Quebec (or their governments) from the rest of Canada.

[Megas Methuselah]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).



Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.



Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation



the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.



A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.



Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.


Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.


EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

So Innuits are not "First Nation"? Don't you find that politically odd, as they must have been there as long as the rest of you?


The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.

It doesn't provide you with actual government though, does it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation

So, basically they're still taking what they want and you still can't stop them; that's sad but it aptly proves my point.


We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.

Even before the coming of the Colonists?


If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

From here it looks like decline is on-going.


Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

I'm not a European.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

Yes, I originally wrote territory and then changed it for some reason. :wall:

Still, Nunavut is granted a fair amount of autonomy, and their MP is the current health minister.


If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

The Quebecois are not oppressed in the slightest. They have little if any reason to complain.


If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

He should have used the term Anglophone, though Anglo or Anglo-Canadian is often used to refer to the English-speaking majority by others, especially the French.

[Megas Methuselah]

Still, Nunavut is granted a fair amount of autonomy, and their MP is the current health minister.


Amazing, isn't it? I was far too young to realize the significance of its seperation from the North-West Territories back in 1999.


The Quebecois are not oppressed in the slightest. They have little if any reason to complain.

Haha, yeah, I know.


Quebec was recognized as such only a couple of years ago by Prime Minister Harper, though of course they already had special status before that.

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.


If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.


He should have used the term Anglophone, though Anglo or Anglo-Canadian is often used to refer to the English-speaking majority by others, especially the French.

Yeah, I meant English-speaking Canadians who, though they may be culturally diverse, still identify Canada as their nation (i.e. not some minority nation within Canada's borders).


So Innuits are not "First Nation"? Don't you find that politically odd, as they must have been there as long as the rest of you?

The First Nation, Inuit, and Metis together form the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Admittedly, it is a bit odd that the Inuit aren't grouped under First Nations, but I guess it's due to their different historical relationship with Canada. They have still been recognized as "Indians," though, and thus, First Peoples.


It doesn't provide you with actual government though, does it?

Nah. It represents the interests of the First Nations and lobbies the federal government. In my eyes, though, it has a lot of potential. The Inuit and Metis have their own counterparts, btw.


So, basically they're still taking what they want and you still can't stop them; that's sad but it aptly proves my point.

Uhm... It was supposed to prove my point that reserve lands aren't all useless pieces of rocks, but if you're arguing that there's still an on-going process of colonialism where the federal government takes whatever the hell it wants, reserve land or not, then you're partly correct. But, as EMFM pointed out earlier, some natives are actually working together with the oil companies. In other theatres, aboriginals have resorted to violence to succesfully drive off these "imperial" encroachments.


Even before the coming of the Colonists?

All other things being equal, yeah. However, it was much more land than the small plots of today's reserves.* It was only with the numbered treaties when the reserves in my province came into existence that the First Nations became bound to these particular areas (they surrendered the rest of their land in exchange for certain benefits in a changing world).


I'm not a European.

Are you white?




* Take the Ojibway, for example. They were quite hesitant to surrender their rights to much of their land to the USA; as their western lands have been acquired through conquest, they felt the land was enriched by the "blood and bones" of their ancestors who died in battle to attain what their descendants could enjoy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.

I don't believe I've heard the word "Nation" with reference to Quebec, but I don't know tha answer to that one.


Yeah, I meant English-speaking Canadians who, though they may be culturally diverse, still identify Canada as their nation (i.e. not some minority nation within Canada's borders).

Except that those Canadians are almost as cultural diverse from each other as from the French-Canadians.


The First Nation, Inuit, and Metis together form the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Admittedly, it is a bit odd that the Inuit aren't grouped under First Nations, but I guess it's due to their different historical relationship with Canada. They have still been recognized as "Indians," though, and thus, First Peoples.


Nah. It represents the interests of the First Nations and lobbies the federal government. In my eyes, though, it has a lot of potential. The Inuit and Metis have their own counterparts, btw.

If it's a Lobby group it's probably a bad thing, Lobbyists thrive only so long as thier "cause" remains unanswered. I would be surprised if you directly elect its members (wow, I'm becoming cynical).


Uhm... It was supposed to prove my point that reserve lands aren't all useless pieces of rocks, but if you're arguing that there's still an on-going process of colonialism where the federal government takes whatever the hell it wants, reserve land or not, then you're partly correct. But, as EMFM pointed out earlier, some natives are actually working together with the oil companies. In other theatres, aboriginals have resorted to violence to succesfully drive off these "imperial" encroachments.

You're half right, the reserves will ultimately be useless pieces of rock, and the natural resources now being contested were, I suspect, unkown at the time the current treaties were signed.


All other things being equal, yeah. However, it was much more land than the small plots of today's reserves.* It was only with the numbered treaties when the reserves in my province came into existence that the First Nations became bound to these particular areas (they surrendered the rest of their land in exchange for certain benefits in a changing world).

So, do you think your ancestors would have kept better, perhaps more fertile, land given a choice.


Are you white?

Yes, but so are Northern Iranians and Tartars, and some Turks; arguably Southern Europeans, especially some Greeks are not "white". The colour of my skin is no more relevant than the colour of my hair or eyes, and it's a useless identifier because I share it with about a billion people with whom I have nothing in common but a few strands of DNA.

At the end of the day, your people lost a series of wars, and ypu now have to rub along with the people who are descended from those who beat your ancestors. Life's like that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/22/harper-quebec.html)

[Megas Methuselah]

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/22/harper-quebec.html)

Well, this is neat. I've always thought it was nothing more than the recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society."



Except that those Canadians are almost as cultural diverse from each other as from the French-Canadians.

I don't think you understand. The Anglo-Canadians may be culturally diverse, yet they view Canada as their nation. The Franco-Canadians in Quebec, on the other hand, view Quebec as theirs. This is what mainly sets them apart: nationalism & national identity.



If it's a Lobby group it's probably a bad thing, Lobbyists thrive only so long as thier "cause" remains unanswered. I would be surprised if you directly elect its members (wow, I'm becoming cynical).

I have my vote in my own band's chief and council. The assembly is an organization of chiefs who themselves vote for the national chief.



You're half right, the reserves will ultimately be useless pieces of rock, and the natural resources now being contested were, I suspect, unkown at the time the current treaties were signed.

:inquisitive: Are you ignoring my posts? There have been plenty of times when Canadian aggression has been halted or when the natives joined in with the federal/provincial governments on the resource-pickings.



So, do you think your ancestors would have kept better, perhaps more fertile, land given a choice.

... They were largely given a choice in choosing reserve lands. The only issue was, in my area anyways, they weren't large-scale farmers or oil miners, understand? Their definition of good, fertile land wasn't the same as ours.



Yes, but so are Northern Iranians and Tartars, and some Turks; arguably Southern Europeans, especially some Greeks are not "white". The colour of my skin is no more relevant than the colour of my hair or eyes, and it's a useless identifier because I share it with about a billion people with whom I have nothing in common but a few strands of DNA.


Ok, very good job shifting the whole mess into another direction. Jesus...


At the end of the day, your people lost a series of wars, and ypu now have to rub along with the people who are descended from those who beat your ancestors. Life's like that

Yeah, my Metis ancestors lost a series of wars against Canada. My Cree and Ojibway ancestors did not; but what the hell does this have to do with anything? Sure, I deal with non-Aboriginals all the time. It's not like I spit on my friends or curse them for being white every time we go drinking.

I'm not even sure how to answer this statement. :dizzy2:

[Strike For The South]

Aren't the metis a mix? I was always under the imperssion they were Canadas mestizos.....

And for the record. I may be "white" but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm a European

[Megas Methuselah]

Aren't the metis a mix? I was always under the imperssion they were Canadas mestizos.....

There's a bit of a dispute here. The old Metis were the offspring of the employees/employers of the fur trading companies and their aboriginal wives. They were given land lots by the companies in retirement to settle and raise their families, whereupon their children would be employed by the companies. They were used as fur traders and as private armies in the company wars between the HBC and NWC. Over time, they developed a distinct culture with unique languages in their settlements, isolated from the western world, far before Canada became a dominion and lustily gazed upon the vast lands on their western borders.

Membership in today's Metis nation requires proof of descent from those old Metis. However, many people of mixed aboriginal and european heritage call themselves metis, even if they do not have ancestry in the old historical Metis and are not members of the Metis nation.



And for the record. I may be "white" but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm a European

:laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

There's a bit of a dispute here. The old Metis were the offspring of the employees/employers of the fur trading companies and their aboriginal wives. They were given land lots by the companies in retirement to settle and raise their families, whereupon their children would be employed by the companies. They were used as fur traders and as private armies in the company wars between the HBC and NWC. Over time, they developed a distinct culture with unique languages in their settlements, isolated from the western world, far before Canada became a dominion and lustily gazed upon the vast lands on their western borders.

Membership in today's Metis nation requires proof of descent from those old Metis. However, many people of mixed aboriginal and european heritage call themselves metis, even if they do not have ancestry in the old historical Metis and are not members of the Metis nation.

So really the Metis are proof that you two can live together. Intresting.



:laugh4:

It's not funny, my family has either been defending themselves against Europeans or giving there lives so Ze Germans wouldn't take jolly old or gay Pairee.

For years the United States was sold out by an Anglo uppercrust simply because they felt some kinship with thier "cousins".

Kinship with people who kicked you out? That's funny

[Megas Methuselah]

So really the Metis are proof that you two can live together. Intresting.

Yeah, mane. The Metis are the cement that binds the three founding pillars together.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think you understand. The Anglo-Canadians may be culturally diverse, yet they view Canada as their nation. The Franco-Canadians in Quebec, on the other hand, view Quebec as theirs. This is what mainly sets them apart: nationalism & national identity.

Yes, but why is that? French Canada was conquered, as was "Native" Canada, "Anglo" Canada as you might term it was not. To me, the lumping together of "Anglo-Canadians" seems like the construction of an "other" which is not really there. The Irish, or Scots, or Germans, are not bothered by being "ruled" by "Anglos", not enough to get political about it anyway. The only conclusion I can come to is that the French-Canadians really want their own country (which some obviously do) and feel oppressed because they do not have a seperate determinable destiny from other Canadians.


I have my vote in my own band's chief and council. The assembly is an organization of chiefs who themselves vote for the national chief.

That is better than I might have expected, but it is still not a distinct legislative body.


:inquisitive: Are you ignoring my posts? There have been plenty of times when Canadian aggression has been halted or when the natives joined in with the federal/provincial governments on the resource-pickings.

Overall though, most of your ancestral land is now owned and held by others, and you lack the resources to defend against an actual armed incursion.


... They were largely given a choice in choosing reserve lands. The only issue was, in my area anyways, they weren't large-scale farmers or oil miners, understand? Their definition of good, fertile land wasn't the same as ours.

"we're taking most of your land, but you can choose a bit to keep", that's rather like a highwayman letting you keep your mother's broach, but taking all your gold. I presume their definition of "good" land would be large hunting ranges, with good water sources and plentiful game reserves. Generally speaking, reserves were cut up to make this kind of lifestyle increasingly difficult (the famous example being the partitioning of the Great Soiux Reservation, which got Sitting Bull killed).


Ok, very good job shifting the whole mess into another direction. Jesus...

You chose to define me by my skin colour, it is both innacurate and racist; it is also totally irrelevant. You construct me as a "European" in order to denigrate me and my opinions (you know I have seen prrof of this). I was merely demonstrating that your point was unsound.


Yeah, my Metis ancestors lost a series of wars against Canada. My Cree and Ojibway ancestors did not; but what the hell does this have to do with anything? Sure, I deal with non-Aboriginals all the time. It's not like I spit on my friends or curse them for being white every time we go drinking.

I'm not even sure how to answer this statement. :dizzy2:

You've completely missed my point, which is illustrative. My Ancestors lost a number of wars, one specifically, but I don't clamour for recognition of Wessex as an independant "nation" with a capital in Winchester. This does not, however, prevent me from knowing my personal family history or being proud of my decent.

[Furunculus]

more on those teh eeeviL canadians at copenhagen:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100002690/corporate-canada-cast-as-the-villain-at-copenhagen/

[lars573]

I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English. Let's not be so crude as to equate ethnicity and skin colour; the shade of your skin is no more relevant than that of your hair or eyes.

From Meth's posts and what I know of the situation and the legality, Natives are still very much segregated.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.
Your actually misunderstanding a few things. The Federal government is billingual. But each province has the right to set their own offical language. Quebec's is French, in 8 other provinces it's English (but most will have French as a courtesey). There is in fact only 1 billigual province, New Brunswick. Public signage in Quebec is in French, in New Scotland it's in English, in New Brunswick it's both.

[Megas Methuselah]

I will get back at this when I have the time after my next final exam for a long post.

[Furunculus]

more on the canada tar-sands:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100004302/kicking-bp-and-shell-over-the-economics-of-canadas-tar-sands-doesnt-add-up/

Kicking BP and Shell over the economics of Canada's tar sands doesn't add up

By Rowena Mason Energy Last updated: March 11th, 2010

The group of investors vociferously trying to persuade BP and Shell to re-evaluate their potential investments in the Canada tar sands has now enlisted a group of MPs in Britain to propose an early day motion questioning the project’s financial viability.

The move is part of a pretty well-coordinated campaign mobilised by FairPensions (members: ActionAid, WWF and a number of trade unions). This year, the rebels have managed to get enough shareholder support to submit motions to the oil companies’ annual meetings against the Alberta prospects, which environmentalists argue will be responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shareholders obviously have a perfect right to kick up a fuss about investments they’re not keen on. Around 25pc of the FTSE-100’s dividends are paid out each year by BP and Shell, so the importance of these two companies’ decisions to UK pensions cannot be under-estimated.

However, it does seem slightly disingenuous that FairPensions is trying to claim that a big reason for their concern is the economics of the projects. They question the margins that will be made by the oil companies and warn of possible high legal fees from environmental challenges, plus the rising costs of climate change legislation.

But if they were so concerned about the right economic decisions being made by companies like BP, they would be having a look at its portfolio of renewables and “other” unit, which made a stonking $2.3bn loss in 2009. Yet there seems to be no issue with wind, solar and biofuels: all eco-friendly, low-carbon projects that are undertaken to improve the company’s green image and prepare for a future of heavier regulation of emissions/higher financial penalties, rather than turn an immediate profit.

What’s more, if you look at an investment like BP’s Project Sunrise, it represents a low proportion of the company’s overall capital expenditure. It is currently planning to spend $1.25bn on the venture over the next few years out of a total $20bn yearly budget on exploration and new projects. If given the go-ahead, BP’s oil sands will only be pumping out 60,000 barrels out of 4m barrels per day by 2014 – around 1.5pc of overall output.

I’m not taking sides on the environmental controversy of this debate. BP claims the extra carbon dioxide emissions of Project Sunrise – from well to wheel – will only be an additional 5-15pc. The campaigners put this figure at a much higher 12-40pc.

It’s just that all the talk about the oil sands’ profitability seems to obscure this real purpose of this argument – do the tar sands pose an unacceptable environmental risk and how much do we care about it? Obviously the economics of the project are borderline unless oil stays in the $80-100 per barrel range, confirmed by the fact that Shell’s Peter Voser has decided to slow the pace of investment at the moment to concentrate on conventional reserves.

But it is highly unlikely that BP and Shell would have been examining these prospects if there were not a probability that they could make some money and they will be subject to the same financial feasibility tests as every other investment – there would be little point in them wasting all this time and money just to spite the environmentalists. And I somehow doubt that the campaigners would be putting all this effort into an anti-tar sand campaign if the projects were the cleanest form of crude extraction in the world.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's terribly destructive though I am uncomfortable with such large scale digging

[Furunculus]

It's terribly destructive though I am uncomfortable with such large scale digging

given that their population desnity is nearly 100 tens less than britains, i'm not too concerned.

[The Wizard]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back :deal2:

[Furunculus]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back

hey! don't do us down, Britain has still i believe got a 40% stake in Shell. :p

[The Wizard]

Wait... it's the Europeans who are ruining the world, not the Americans? :dizzy2: I thought our 19th century glory was behind us

[Furunculus]

Wait... it's the Europeans who are ruining the world, not the Americans? :dizzy2: I thought our 19th century glory was behind us

europe has three of the six oil super-majors, america has the other three.

france has one
uk has one and a half
and the netherlands has got the other half