After receiving three letters in a matter of days from Tides Canada lawyers which threatened legal action if Vivian Krause did not modify wording on her website posts, it would seem that the intimidation has not slowed the North Vancouver mom down. Today she made her first appearance on CKNW's Bill Good Show with guest host Michael Campbell.
Despite an invitation by CKNW to have a representative from Vision Vancouver or Tides Canada on today's program with Krause and Campbell, none was supplied.
Campbell is someone who clearly gets the scope and significance of the findings of Krause's work, and even complimented her on air today by stating that she had produced "the best investigative work" he's seen all year. For someone who doesn't consider herself a journalist but only a researcher, it's a high compliment. As Krause states in the end of today's interview with Campbell, she hopes that her leg work will result in some great follow-up by the mainstream media.
Last Thursday Vivian's latest "must read" entry on the subject of US charities funding a campaign to block trade along BC's west coast appeared in the Financial Post. It's titled "Demarketing Alberta" and you can read it here. It was followed up by the Vancouver Sun publishing a version of the article in Saturday's edition, accompanied by a photo of Pamela Anderson. Anderson has been enlisted as a high-profile paid spokesperson to drum up fear of calamity on our coast, even walking barefoot over barnacles to make her point.
What Krause spells out, and the folks at Tides Canada and their funders do not want you to know, is that their charitable cash is going to a campaign to block an important strategic part of Canada's west coast. Blocking this area of B.C.'s coastline effectively shuts down our country's ability to trade our oil resource to any other country but the USA.
If you need a transparent of example of how they're doing this, look at the following select passage from Krause's article:
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund granted $105,000 specifically to the First Nations at the Kitimat village, which is right at the mouth of the Douglas Channel. That’s precisely where export-bound oil tankers would need to load. That included $70,000 for an anniversary celebration in 2004 and $35,000 for a ceremonial event in 2006. Of all the aboriginal people in the world, why is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund giving money to the First Nations at Kitimat Village?
...The Pacific North Coast Integrated Area Management Initiative (PNCIMA) extends from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the southern tip of Alaska but not Vancouver Island. Thus, PNCIMA covers precisely the area where oil tankers would need to pass — but not other parts of the B.C. coast. While Moore has paid or promised $28-million for PNCIMA, Moore granted less than $1-million for the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Like PNCIMA, the Coast Conservation Endowment Fund Foundation (CCEFF), commonly known as the “Coast Opportunity Fund,” covers the same part of the north and central coast of B.C. — but not the coast of Vancouver Island. The CCEFF supports “eligible” First Nations along the north and central coast of B.C. Of the 37 grants the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has made since 2003 for projects in Canada, the largest by far was a 2003 grant to the CCEFF for a nice, cool $1-million.
The federal Liberal Party is allying itself again with the Bloc Québéçois and the NDP on a well-meaning but naive adventure that will likely damage their political prospects in B.C. again. Local Liberal MP Joyce Murray has tabled Bill C-606 to put that motion into law by amending the Canada Shipping Act to prohibit oil tanker traffic on the north and central coast of British Columbia.
People much more informed on this subject than I have a clearer view on the stakes. These quotes were shared to me on the promise they are not identified.
The problem of cutting off our coast from oil exports is that it gives the Americans total control of our resource. Because the U.S. is a net importer of oil, they will always want ours, but they will have the advantage on pricing. Further, they can insist on what they are willing to pay claiming that oil sands oil is, for example, too "dirty."
However, much more dangerously, now that the price of carbon is such a big deal to the world market, the US will have the ability to offload a huge amount of carbon emissions compliance on Canadian production at a high cost borne by us, while not penalizing the dirty U.S. production at all.
While of course shipping oil off our coast must be safe, we risk even more by losing our ability to bargain with our big neighbour.
To me this last passage sums up the potential crisis our federal politicians are walking us into, in the face of massive, well-financed campaigns using money from American charities. Worse, our local politicians from Vision Vancouver are directly connected to it, while refusing to be accountable at all. It reminds me of the situation our forest industry faced when huge duties were slapped on local foresters, strapping the Canadian industry over a barrel for decades.
- post by Mike