ALF V1

AFL calls for change in laws governing farm workers before it's too late

EDMONTON - The Alberta government must act now before farm workers in this province suffer the kind of tragedy that has recently rocked Ontario, says the province's largest labour group.

"The conditions endured by farm workers on their journeys to and from worksites are a recipe for disaster," says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents 145,000 workers. "Let's learn the lesson from the tragedy in Ontario last week, when 11 farm workers died when the van transporting them crashed. Let's learn the lesson from B.C., where three farm workers died in 2007 when a van carrying 16 workers flipped. Let's not wait until people are killed on Alberta roads before doing the right thing," he says.

Tomorrow, the AFL will hold a media conference and will call on the Alberta government to end the exemption that allows farm workers to travel in the back on open pickup trucks. "We won't let anyone else travel in such a dangerous way – why are farm workers treated like second class citizens?" It will also call for tougher rules governing the types of vehicles used to transport workers.

This call for action coincides with a national day of action Friday demanding justice for migrant farm workers, including those who died in Hampstead, Ont.

A backgrounder on farm-worker transportation, including a photograph that illustrates the conditions facing farm workers, will be made available at the media conference.

TIME: 2:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 16
LOCATION: McDougall Room, 3rd floor,
Chateau Lacombe Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Edmonton
(10111 Bellamy Hill)

MEDIA CONTACT: Gil McGowan, AFL President, 780-218-9888

-

-30-

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour @ 780-218-9888 (cell)

A concerted effort is now underway to ensure that Albertans have a "conversation" about current levels of taxation.

Fair enough, but it seems that conversation is code for convincing Albertans that we need higher levels of taxation.

What this conversation will require, therefore, is a voice willing to make the case against higher taxes and to even go a step further and make the case for a shift away from the most damaging forms of taxation.

There are positive things that can be said for the status quo, and it is curious that the architects of the status quo are so hesitant to defend it.

The governing Tories don't shy away from boasting about Alberta's enviable economic position or their role in creating it, but now those same Tories are the ones who are suggesting that the status quo is no longer sustainable.

After tabling his budget last week, Finance Minister Ron Liepert spoke of the need to "move toward a more sustainable revenue base."

Of course, this will all take place after the upcoming provincial election. Liepert says this "thorough conversation" about our fiscal framework cannot be done "in the space of a few weeks prior to an election."

Yes, heaven forbid we should have a serious conversation about an important issue in the context of a provincial election campaign. After all, what would an election be without platitudes and demagogy?

The Alberta Liberals, to their credit, are not taking the coward's way out. They, like the Tories, believe we need a more sustainable revenue base, and as such, their platform is calling for higher taxes.

The Liberals would introduce higher rates ranging from 13 per cent all the way up to 17 per cent for those earning over $100,000. The Liberals would also raise Alberta's corporate tax rate from 10 to 12 per cent.

Such proposals are very much in line with those being advocated in a new ad campaign from the Alberta Federation of Labour and Public Interest Alberta.

The ads question why high income earners and profitable corporations aren't paying more, and argue that we could easily ask them to do so and still have relatively low tax rates.

Of course, high income earners do contribute a great deal. According to Alberta Finance, the top 15 per cent of income earners in the province pay over two-thirds of income taxes.

We should also be careful about the assumption that higher tax rates would mean higher revenues and have no other impact.

Take Quebec, for example, which has some of the highest tax rates among the provinces: 16 per cent, 20 per cent, and 24 per cent. Presumably, those much higher rates should generate much higher levels of revenue. Except they don't. In fact, Alberta's 10 per cent flat tax generates more personal income tax revenue on a per-capita basis than Quebec's higher rates do.

Moreover, increasing taxes on capital is going to have all sorts of negative impacts on the economy. So, too, will the removing of the simplicity and efficiency of the flat tax.

Raising corporate taxes could be even more detrimental. There's no shortage of evidence showing that higher corporate taxes are associated with lower rates of growth, lower wages and lower productivity.

A study last September from economists Bev Dahlby at the University of Alberta and Ergete Ferede at Grant MacEwan University found that corporate taxes are the worst taxes for governments to raise. The most efficient way of generating revenue, they conclude, is through a sales tax.

Research from the University of Calgary's Jack Mintz — perhaps the country's leading expert on the subject — suggests strongly that Alberta needs to head in this direction.

Mintz estimates that an eight per cent sales tax would allow Alberta to cut income and corporate tax rates in half. That would provide a true sustainable revenue source and would provide the benefits that would come with shifting away from the most economically damaging forms of taxation.

Unfortunately, we remain stuck between those proposing harmful tax increases and opponents of tax increases who shy away from changes that could further strengthen Alberta's economic position.

This "conversation" is off to a rough start.

Calgary Herald, Feb 13 2012
Byline: Rob Breakenridge

EDMONTON - Premier Alison Redford's Alberta Tories delivered a pre-election budget Thursday that increased spending to record levels and raided billions from the piggy bank, but promised the province will be out of the red within a year.

There are no tax hikes, no new taxes, no significant program cuts and no job layoffs. And there is more money to pay for everything from new police officers to smaller class sizes to student loans.

"We've delivered a budget that Albertans said they would support," Finance Minister Ron Liepert told reporters before delivering the 2012-13 spending document.

"That's our job: to listen to Albertans."

The plan is predicated on the price of oil staying high and even soaring to an average of US$108 a barrel by 2014, prompting the opposition Wildrose party to label the premier "Alison in Wonderland."

It currently sits close to US$100 a barrel.

The bottom line amounts to an $886 million deficit, the fifth in a row after 14 years of surpluses.

The budget boosts government spending by 3.3 per cent to a record $41.1 billion.

Program spending is up almost seven per cent, with substantial raises for education, health, cities and money for the most vulnerable.

The bills are to be paid for with rising oil revenues, higher taxes from a growing population and a $3.7-billion drawdown from the $7.5-billion Sustainability Fund.

The budget projects that with oil revenues and population growth, there will be a $952-million budget surplus next year and a $5.2-billion surplus the year after that.

Liepert denied the government is doing a pre-election bait-and-switch by tabling a feel-good budget that will be followed after the election by job and program cuts when the Tories conduct a government-wide financial review.

"There is no hidden agenda here," said Liepert.

"If somebody is trying to draw a scenario that somehow after the election we're going to come up with all these bogeyman theories, well, let them go ahead, because they're going to be wrong."

Redford has promised to pass the budget, then drop the writ on a general election, with a campaign likely to begin in mid-March. The Tories currently hold a huge majority of the seats in the legislature and have been in power for 40 years, but are being challenged on the right by the Wildrose.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said the Tories are budgeting on a wish and a prayer.

"It's an Alison in Wonderland budget," said Smith.

"We're going into a budget with fantasy land projections so (the Tories) can manufacture a surplus. There's no possible way these numbers are going to work. They have no discipline on spending."

Brian Mason, leader of the NDP, agreed that the Tories are handing out "goodies" based on unrealistic projections. He said if Redford's team wins the election it will then either hike taxes or cut jobs.

"This budget is a little bit of dust in the eyes of Alberta citizens," said Mason.

Raj Sherman of the Alberta Liberals said the only way to be realistic about revenue is to move from the province's 10 per cent flat tax to a progressive one targeting the wealthy.

Sherman said his team will do that.

"The tough question is: Which leader has the political cojones to be honest to the people and bring in a fair, progressive tax for those earning over $100,000 a year?" he said.

However, the Alberta School Boards Association said it was pleased with more education spending, saying it will give school boards the flexibility they need to respond to community needs.

"We are cautiously optimistic but the reality is that only a portion of that increase is in base student funding," said president Jacquie Hansen. "As a result, school boards will be challenged to do more than just maintain the programming and services they have."

The Alberta Federation of Labour criticized the budget for giving away too much in taxes and oil royalties, and Public Interest Alberta said while it was pleased about AISH increases, it noted cuts to funding for new affordable housing.

The budget invests heavily in core areas.

There will be an almost eight per cent increase in operating funds for the Health Department and a six per cent increase in operating funds for Alberta Health Services, which delivers front-line care.

Operating budgets for grade schools are going up 3.4 per cent to $6.2 billion. There will be more money for smaller class sizes and for busing.

Post-secondary institutions are to see a 2.7 per cent boost to their operating funds to nearly $2.9 billion. An extra infusion of cash will buttress bursaries, grants and help students with their loans.

Payments under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped are to go up by one-third to $1,588 a month along with a rise in how much someone on the program can earn before clawbacks kick in.

Income support rates are to go up five per cent for Albertans in 34,000 homes who are training for work, looking for work or unable to work.

About $16.5 billion is to be allocated over the next three years to build schools, hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure.

This year, 14 new schools are expected to come on line, along with new medical facilities in Calgary and Edmonton. Work on a cancer-care centre in Red Deer continues.

Money is also to go to municipalities to hire 90 more Mounties and 55 more sheriffs. There will be 180 additional correctional officers and staff for a new Remand Centre in Edmonton.

There's also $11 million to boost environmental monitoring in the oilsands region.

All the bills are to be paid for by a roaring petro-powered economy expected to grow by 3.8 per cent in 2012.

The government is budgeting revenues at a record $40.3 billion.

Resource revenue will account for $11.2 billion — half of that from the oilsands alone.

Taxes are not up, but tax revenue is — close to $18 billion, half of which will come from personal income taxes.

Along with the budget Thursday, the government also delivered its third-quarter update for the current budget year. The province is on track for a $1.3-billion deficit for 2011-12 — much less than the $3.4 billion projected at budget time last year. The government credits higher than expected resource and tax revenues.

The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, a rainy day account that is separate from the Sustainability Fund, reports net assets of $14.4 billion as of the end of 2011.

The Alberta Federation of Labour called the budget a story of billions in giveaways.

Winnipeg Free Press, Fri Feb 10, 2012

"No honest conversation with Albertans on Revenues in Budget 2012" – McGowan

Edmonton – Alberta cannot hope to have great health and education services and fewer deficits without ending corporate tax and royalty giveaways, says Gil McGowan.

McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, says today's budget tells the story of billions in giveaways.

Final numbers for the Conservatives' "drilling stimulus initiative" were provided and showed the government gave oil and gas companies $1.77 billion last year, for a total of nearly $3 billion. About $1 billion of drilling stimulus initiatives have been made a permanent feature of the royalty regime.

"The Conservatives have, once again, overlooked the real problem: they've simply given away too much in taxes and royalties. And that's creating unnecessary deficits and unwarranted pressure on services that matter to Albertans."

"No Alberta budget will ever be a good budget until we fix our broken system for generating revenue," concludes McGowan.

-30-

For more information call:

Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour @ 780-218-9888 (cell)

It was either the best of Throne Speeches or it was the worst of Throne Speeches. Heck, maybe it was both at the same time.

Yesterday being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, maybe there's something powerfully symbolic in that assessment of the first Throne Speech by the Progressive Conservative government of Alison Redford.

If the purpose of a Speech from the Throne, as historically has been agreed, is to set out the broad goals of the government and describe the initiatives it will undertake to accomplish those goals, then yesterday's speech was a spectacular failure.

Indeed, it was breathtaking in its vacuity. Talk about low-bridging it! This speech was so content-free the Tory barge could slip unnoticed under any bridge, no matter how close the deck was to the water.

To call this speech the Electrolux Speech does it a disservice. It was so unenlightening it made one think of a stellar black hole -- dense enough to attract matter, even light, into its dark core!

Oh, the speech haltingly read by Lieutenant Governor Donald Ethell was replete with cheerful sentiments -- "your government will make Alberta the best jurisdiction anywhere... ," "your government will treat Albertans' money with the same care and respect they do, spending wisely on the services Albertans count on for an outstanding quality of life... ," "your government will provide seniors with the supports, services and care they need to remain healthy, happy and productive... ," "patients in need of medical attention will be able to get it." Yadda-yadda.

There were even a few choice comparisons of the Alison Redford Tories to the Peter Lougheed Tories -- though without a whiff of the "bold" and "imaginative" policies that made even Lougheed's enemies respect his leadership. As Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan quipped after the speech: "Peter Lougheed said hi to my Grade 8 class when we visited the Legislature! Premier, you're no Peter Lougheed..."

Between that stuff and the four closing references to God -- "May God bless you all; God bless Alberta; God bless Canada; God save the Queen!" -- there was barely a hint about how any of this is going to be achieved. No, that's not quite right. There were no hints at all!

The broad goals of this government are clear enough: heavenly perfection right here on the Great Plains. The initiatives to be undertaken to accomplish it? Insufficient data.

The closest thing to even a hint of a hint in the speech was the suggestion that since the province's "current fiscal framework relies too heavily on volatile energy revenue as a source of income ... it's fine for foundational change. It won't be easy, but it is the right way to better manage the annual unpredictably in the budgeting process."

Say what? Foundational change? That's it? Oh yeah, and we'll have zero-based budgeting, except that we'll call it something else.

The Wildrose Party will say this means new taxes. Possibly some of the other parties will too. Maybe someone will wonder if this means no petroleum royalties. The Redford Tories, one expects, will just smile and say very little at all. And that one's about the only line in the whole speech anyone is going to be able to get their teeth into!

Look, it's perfectly clear what's going on here. The government's strategy -- doubtless devised by Stephen Carter, Premier Redford's demonstrably clever chief of staff -- is to say nothing, nothing at all, that can get the government in trouble.

Their own polls look good, and some of the others do too, although there are dark hints that a Sun poll today may contain some surprises. But the PCs are clearly counting on being able to coast through another election without a major upheaval. Describing an actual policy in detail might give the opposition something to take shots at, so no policies will be described.

"We thought they were going to give us a few piñatas to take a whack at," a wistful Wildrose advisor commented, a little plaintively. "There's nothing there."

That's almost certainly Carter's idea. The only question is whether or not it will work. The jury's still out on that, of course.

One seasoned political veteran told me with a straight face he couldn't believe Albertans would fall for it. "It's insulting!"

But the same strategy in the hands of the late Senator Keith Davy worked for Pierre Trudeau in the 1980 federal campaign, as Trudeau press secretary Patrick Gossage recalls fondly in this 2011 tribute to the Senator. At any rate, it spelled the end of Joe Clark, although it was left to another Conservative named Brian Mulroney to actually dispatch that poor fellow.

Gossage says of the campaign technique we are witnessing now in the hands of Carter: "This was and is ... the classic strategy for politicians leading in the polls."

It would be fair, though, to say that Carter is taking it farther than most political strategists would dare to advise their charges, although one would think there would have to be a few more details in the Budget.

If it works, as it very well may, Carter will be hailed as a genius. If it doesn't, well, all we can say for sure is that any failure is bound to be spectacular.

All that remains to be seen is when Carter will advise his premier to call an election.

Will the Conservatives really wait until after the Legislature has debated and passed the budget that will be introduced by Finance Minister Ron Liepert tomorrow? Third Reading would come in late March, with an election late in April.

Assuming another Conservative victory -- as the Conservatives obviously do -- that would let them run the province for the better part of the year without the nuisance of having to answer annoying Opposition questions in the Legislature.

Or will they find some excuse to pull the plug sooner, once they see how the public has responded to the budget?

rabble.ca, Wed Feb 8 2012

Other than Canadian political parties themselves, the Fraser Institute must be Canada's most intensely political organization.

Notwithstanding its pious mission statement -- "to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals" -- essentially 100 per cent of the Fraser Institute's activities are 100-per-cent political.

As such, the far-right, market fundamentalist "think tank" plays a key role in what author Donald Gutstein terms the "corporate propaganda system" that purports to churn out unbiased research but in fact works tirelessly to hijack our democracy for the benefit of Big Business and the ultra-wealthy families that control it.

The Fraser Institute strives to change Canadians' political attitudes so they will place far-right political parties like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives in power, and keep them there. It works relentlessly to restructure our political architecture in ways that will make it difficult for citizens to seize back their own country. And it fields an army of "former researchers" -- Danielle Smith, leader of the far-right Wildrose Party here in Alberta is a prominent example -- who play an overtly political role.

Nor is there much that is fair or scientific about the Fraser Institute's research, despite the claim it is subject to "a rigorous peer review process." Saskatoon health policy consultant Stephen Lewis brilliantly deconstructs the Grade 9 methodology behind the "institute's" annual report on hospital wait times and exposes it as "skewed estimates on a hot-button issue," retailed as hard data, and intended "to lure Canadians to the promised land of private medicine."

"Never mind the 16-per-cent response rate in 2011, which alone cashiers validity," Lewis writes of the Fraser Institute's effort. "Even more fundamentally, the questionnaire asks respondents for neither the sources of their estimates, nor whether they consult any real data to support their responses."

So, as Nova Scotia Finance Minister Graham Steele put it: "The Fraser Institute produces junk. It is not a serious institution. It is a political organization."

Steele was two-thirds right. The Fraser Institute is serious all right, although its research is not serious in the normal sense of transparency and lack of bias, no matter what it claims. But it surely is political. Indeed, the Fraser Institute is all politics, all the time.

As it turns out, this is important, because the Fraser Institute is also a registered charity, meaning that those Canadians who do pay taxes are in effect subsidizing its purely political operations. Indeed, to go a step further, we are also subsidizing those wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that bankroll the Fraser Institute's propaganda efforts to work directly against the interests of ordinary Canadians.

Alert readers will be aware that charitable status for organizations that take controversial positions on the issues of that day is currently a highly contentious issue -- at least when the registered charities in question do not support the Harper government on such issues as bitumen pipelines to the West Coast, climate science and uncontrolled oilsands development.

So, for example, Charles Adler, Canada's self-styled "everyman" and a bloviator for Canada's real state broadcaster, the Sun (Non)News Network, columnized last month about how "there's no shortage of radical greens getting generous tax breaks from the federal government."

"Under the law," Adler opined, "these supposed charities can only spend 10 per cent of their budget on advocacy activities. I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."

Others on the government side of this debate take a more extreme view. An email now in circulation originating somewhere within the Online Tory Rage Machine accuses an Alberta-based environmental group of being part of a "treasonous and underhanded" conspiracy "to destroy our Alberta oil industry."

And last month, the Globe and Mail reported that the Commons Finance Committee's review of the charitable sector is expected to attack the charitable status of Canadian environmental organizations.

So it is interesting that when it comes to one of Canada's most intensely political organizations, which boasts on its website about the controversial nature of the positions it takes, its charitable status passes uncontested among these same far-right actors, including the ones in government.

Now, the Canada Revenue Agency's rules governing political activities by charitable organizations are not quite as clear-cut as Adler makes them sound, but he has the gist of it right. Depending on their annual income in the previous year, registered charities may contribute between 12 and 20 per cent of their resources to political activities in the current year.

However, "a registered charity cannot be created for a political purpose and cannot be involved in partisan political activities," the CRA states. "A political activity is considered partisan if it involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, a political party or candidate for office."

Elsewhere, the CRA goes on to define political activities quite broadly, including the following: "explicitly communicates to the public that the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country should be retained (if the retention of the law, policy or decision is being reconsidered by a government), opposed, or changed..." The CRA even defines as political activities as "attempts to sway public opinion on social issues."

So, obviously, from any common sense position, the Fraser Institute fails to meet this broad test and clearly should lose its charitable status.

When a charity files its annual income statement with the Canada Revenue Agency, it is always asked: "Did the charity carry on any political activities during the fiscal period." Yet in each year between 2000 and 2010, according to a recent Access to Information request by the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Fraser Institute answered "No."

"Any rookie observer of Canadian politics knows this is nonsense," the AFL wrote in its Jan. 17 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Tax Incentives for Charitable Donations. "The Fraser Institute is actively involved in the Canadian political landscape. Any reporting or suggestion otherwise is a sham."

In 2010, for example, the Fraser Institute explicitly communicated to the public calls for laws to be changed, thereby engaging in politics as defined by the CRA. So the Fraser Institute column, "Reject Unions and Prosper," which was published on Sept. 10, 2010, urged Canadian provinces to adopt "right-to-work" laws typical of those U.S. states south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

"Provinces would do well to adopt worker-choice laws (called right-to-work laws in the United States), which would allow workers to choose whether they want to join and financially support a union," the article, which is found on the Fraser Institute's website, states.

Clearly this article meets the standard for political activity set by the CRA. There is no shortage of similar examples.

Indeed, one day after last year's federal election, in which the political party clearly backed by the Fraser Institute won a majority, they were at it again, pushing Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party to change Canada's election spending laws to eliminate all per-vote subsidies for political parties.

So, never mind why the media treats the Fraser Institute's dubious findings with such respect, the question most often asked about this organization. That seems obvious enough considering who owns the media.

A better question is: Given its responses to the CRA, can Canadians have any confidence that the Fraser Institute is staying within the 12 per cent of its allowed limit for political activities?

Moreover, it is fair to wonder: Is anyone at the Canada Revenue Agency paying attention or even raising concerns about the Fraser Institute's constant political activities, let alone questioning its charitable status?

As Adler said, "I'll leave it to you to judge whether these radicals are obeying this law."

rabble.ca, Tues Feb 7 2012

A new report says the Northern Gateway pipeline will boost crude oil prices $2 to $3 per barrel annually over the next 30 years, causing significant damage to consumers, businesses and the Canadian economy.

The economic assessment of the $5.5-billion project by Robyn Allan, former CEO of Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, says the price shock will have "a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment labour income and government revenues."

Allan, an economist who re-searched the impact of the pipeline proposal out of curiosity, says it has been touted by proponents as a nation-building enterprise, but it really represents a "serious economic risk" to the Canadian economy.

"The emperor has no clothes," Allan said in an interview. "We're told it is a gross producing economic opportunity, but in fact it's an oil price shock to the economy."

Allan said when the price of oil goes up, that means Canadian consumers and businesses will pay more for anything produced by that oil. That will result in inflation, business being shrunk and employees being laid off, she said.

Enbridge forecast a $2 to $3 annual increase in the price per barrel of crude in its pipeline application to the joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel.

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the company can't comment in detail about the report because it is evidence tabled before the panel at its ongoing pipeline hearings, but it will get a chance to challenge the report in September. Stanway con-firmed, though, the projected price increase in the application.

"The price of oil in Canada is estimated to increase $2 to $3 per barrel as a result of market diversity and exposure to global pricing," he said.

"That's correct, but that is taken into account in our estimation of an over-all benefit of about $270 billion to the Canadian economy."

He said there is a significant benefit to the federal treasury and to Alberta as a result of having an outlet to world markets. "If we don't get that outlet to the global marketplace, we're trapped with essentially being able to sell into just one market and we're going to get a heavily discounted price for that resource," Stanway said. "We're talking about Canada's most valuable export commodity. Why would we want to sell it continuously at a discount?"

Allan said Enbridge has exaggerated the benefits of the pipeline and downplayed the economic impact of price shock on Canadian refineries and businesses and consumers.

"They used the wrong model to answer the question of what will hap-pen to the economy when Northern Gateway is successful in raising oil prices," she said.

Allan, named as by the Financial Post as one of Canada's top 200 CEOs, said she wanted to present her information to the hearing panel and question Enbridge on its model, but was denied intervener status.

The 145,000-member Alberta Federation of Labour included her report in its submission to the panel this week.

Edmonton Journal, Sat Feb 4 2012
Byline: Darcy Henton

A study endorsed by opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Calgary-based Enbridge says it would cause an oil "price shock" to Canada's economy.

The economic assessment was done by Robyn Allan, the former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

It concluded that the higher prices for Canadian oil that would be gained by access to world markets would have an "inflationary price shock which will have a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment, labour income and government revenues."

"Higher oil prices mean a decrease in family purchasing power, higher prices for industries who use oil as an input into their production process, higher rates of unemployment in non-oil industry related sectors, a decline in real GDP, a decline in government revenues, an increase in inflation, an increase in interest rates and further appreciation of the Canadian dollar," Allan said.

The study said industry predictions of $270 billion in economic benefits from Gateway don't consider the depressing effects of increased oil prices.

The National Energy Board refused to grant Allan status as an intervener in regulatory hearings, the Alberta Federation of Labour said, so it included her report in the AFL's submission.

Argues for more refining in Canada

AFL president Gil McGowan said the study shows that more upgrading and refining of oilsands crude should be done in Canada.

By doing that, he said, "We can make sure that Canadians keep much more of the value created by development within the country. And, by developing markets in Eastern Canada instead of Asia, we can ensure that Alberta's growth isn't coming at the expense of growth in other provinces."

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the company can't comment on the study because it is evidence submitted before regulators, but that the firm will be able to be able to make a rebuttal in September.

Canada's oil industry has maintained that its inability to access world markets has kept Canadian domestic production trapped within North America, creating an oversupply and keeping the price below what it would be otherwise.

However, while Allan's study assumes an annual increase of between $2 and $3 per barrel over 30 years, Stanway said that range came from a study commissioned by Enbridge, which dealt only with the one-time, immediate effect on price, once the pipeline went into operation.

The joint review by the NEB and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency continued Thursday with hearings in Fort St. James, B.C., and is scheduled to last until April, 2013.

The $5.5-billion, 1,177-kilometre project would carry 525,000 barrels of oilsands crude a day from near Edmonton to a tanker terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

huffingtonpost.ca, Fri Feb 3 2012

Today the HarperCons stepped into the [cesspool / polluted waters] tar sands issue to announce a water monitoring project which will take 3 years and $50 million to fully implement. The Regina Mom agrees with Halifax NDP MP Megan Leslie; this is a PR stunt. And, TRM shares Edmonton MP Linda Duncan's concerns that First Nations communities were not adequately consulted and that many more tar sands projects could be approved before this monitoring begins. TRM considers this announcement to be a reflection of the great work the ecojustice community "radical groups" are doing to educate citizens on the issues. Well done, radicals!

One such radical, Andrew Nikiforuk, declared a political emergency regarding the tar sands years ago. His latest piece at The Tyee cites a "detailed analysis" submitted to the National Energy Board by Robyn Allan who is the former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Ms. Allan's report "concludes that "Northern Gateway is neither needed nor is in the public interest."

"I assumed that it would be a wealth generating project," the 56-year-old retired investment and financial affairs economist told the Tyee. "But when I started digging none of those assumptions held. The project is an inflationary price shock to the economy."

...

Allan, once rated by the National Post as one of Canada's top 200 CEOs, says she started to study the economic case for the project after a query by her son. That was when she discovered that Enbridge's economic benefit models were based on "misleading information, faulty methodology, numerous errors and presentation bias."

TRM's readers can download Allan's full report, "An Economic Assessment of Northern Gateway" at the Alberta Federation of Labour's website. Note that, according to Nikiforuk, "Allan's report supports the findings of Dave Hughes, a retired senior analyst with Natural Resources Canada. He described the pipeline as a risk to Canada's economic and energy security" a report to which TRM has previously linked.

Further commentary comes from the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union of Canada which also says that the Gateway pipeline is unsustainable, based on a report they commissioned from Informetrica Inc.

rabble.ca, Fri Feb 3 2012

Disagreements on the Keystone Pipeline continue in Congress as Republicans insist that the project move forward.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing Friday on a bill to mandate approval of the pipeline. Before the subcommittee met, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) held a press conference to express his opposition to the project.

"With the pipeline, we're going to get more carbon pollution, more dangerous oil spills, land seizures by a foreign company and higher oil prices," said Waxman. "The American people will bear the risk, and the oil companies will reap the profits."

Waxman accused Koch Industries of being behind efforts to lobby for the pipeline. The company, headed by billionaire oil tycoons Charles and David Koch, is known for contributing to conservative causes.

"When we asked Koch Industries a year ago whether they had an interest in this matter, they told us no," Waxman said. However, Waxman stated that Canadian documents have proven otherwise, and that they reveal a direct financial interest from the company in the pipeline.

Koch Industries ignored Democrats' calls for them to send representatives to testify at today's hearing.

UPDATE: A spokeswoman for Koch Industries responded to TRNS's request for a comment in response to Waxman's claims. Here is the full statement from Philip Ellender, Koch's Government and Public Affairs President and COO: (also available here)

"In response to the repeated false allegations by Representative Waxman and some news media, Koch has consistently and repeatedly stated that we have no financial interest whatsoever in the Keystone pipeline. In addition, this fact has been verified by TransCanada's CEO. Further, the notion that Koch as an intervenor means that we have an interest in the project has been completely debunked. An 'intervenor' status in the proceeding does not mean that the Koch subsidiary at issue has a financial or ownership interest in the project. In fact, some of the intervenors in this case include Sierra Club Canada, Alberta Federation of Labour, several First Nation groups, other companies, and numerous individuals."

In addition, Koch's General Counsel, Mark Holden, had this to say:

"Contrary to Representative Waxman's claim, we never said that we have a direct and substantial interest in the pipeline project. What Flint Hills Resources Canada said was that it had an interest in the application that was pending before the National Energy Board. We have been completely honest with all involved in this matter, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true."

talkradionews.com, Fri Feb 3 2012