Ontario once enjoyed bountiful supplies of affordable energy -- and used it over more than a century to build our province into an industrial powerhouse and resource development dynamo.
But times have changed.
You may have seen a news article a week ago, for example, about how high electricity prices, along with a burdensome approvals process, add up to obstacles to investment in Northern Ontario's Ring of Fire region. My caucus colleague, and Ontario PC energy critic, Vic Fedeli used a recent provincial parliamentary committee meeting to press the government for some answers about this critical issue.
Because it's been in the news lately, I want to use the Ring of Fire to illustrate a broader point, to show how heavily energy costs can weigh on economic sectors like mining, forestry and manufacturing -- where Ontario most urgently needs to kick-start job creation with more than half a million people unemployed.
The Ring of Fire should be a cause for optimism with the ongoing jobs crisis in Ontario. According to Richard Nemis, the entrepreneur who gave the Ring of Fire its name, the "economic impact of this discovery on the Ontario economy will probably run into the hundreds of billions of dollars over time."
But there's the catch: Ontario needs to do more than just extract the Ring of Fire's chromite, copper and nickel deposits. Ideally, we want those minerals processed in Ontario-based facilities, by Ontarians, so we get the maximum benefit from the Ring of Fire's true economic potential.
But with energy prices now spiking to historic highs, we'll be lucky just to extract these and other resources in a cost-effective way -- never mind process them here at home for sale and export.
Look at forestry: Ontario has already lost more than 60 lumber mills, which often point to high electricity costs as one of the primary factors of closing their front gates. In recent years, these plant closures have taken some 10,000 direct forestry jobs with them.
And if mining companies face energy costs in Northern Ontario that are vastly higher compared to those prevailing in neighboring jurisdictions, there's a risk our mineral riches will be shipped for processing elsewhere.
Ontario today can't afford this scenario.
This brings me to what Ontario's energy policy for manufacturers and resource-based industries such as mining and forestry should do -- but doesn't.
As laid out in our Ontario PC Caucus Paths to Prosperity: Affordable Energy white paper, it's time to consider a new power rate for our manufacturing and natural resources sectors. This would be set independently by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), using objective economic criteria like the average costs of electricity for similar businesses operating in competing states and provinces.
The OEB would also have to take the impact on consumers into account, and monitor the costs and benefits of this power rate. And obviously government would need to ensure that the new rate actually creates investment and jobs.
During a visit to Northern Ontario in April, I noted that big markets such as the United States, Brazil and China are going to be eager customers for what Ontario's resource sectors can provide. If we can ensure a reliable supply of energy at a reasonable cost in the North, we will get the full benefit of the Ring of Fire bonanza -- including from the related processing work, as well as extraction. There is no question that the US housing market will bounce back -- what we need to be sure of is that they'll buy their lumber from us.
The fact is, Ontario is in a race with other Canadian provinces and U.S. states for investment and jobs. With the right energy policies in place, we will win that race. But to do it, we've got some tough decisions to make. We've got to get our economic fundamentals right. One of the big ones is energy policy. It must become a driver of job creation -- not a barrier. Because without competitive energy costs, we may never be able to extract these resources in the first place -- never mind developing the capacity to process them right here in Ontario prior to export.
John Laforet: Green Energy Act Sufferers Seeing Red
And yet, in 2007 an independent Grassy Narrows fisherman was charged and pled guilty in a Kenora court to one count of unlawfully selling fish tainted by mercury contamination, contrary to the Ontario Fish Inspection Act. MNR conservation officers from the Kenora District discovered the nets set in Grassy Narrows Lake, near the community, on Sept. 4, 2005. Forensic tests on the fish, done at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in Winnipeg, revealed mercury levels of 1.0 parts per million, twice the acceptable level of 0.5 parts per million (Kenora Daily Miner, 2007). 320 pounds of fish from Grassy Narrows Lake were seized in the incident and the retailer was ordered to dispose of the fish, which was later dumped at the Kenora waste transfer station.
“We know too well the tragic consequences of failing to listen when the people of Grassy Narrows say no to destructive industry on their lands,” said David Sone of the environmental group Earthroots. “It is time for Ontario to stop repeating the mistakes of the past and to respect Grassy Narrows’ vision for the the land they always have used and cared for. We cannot allow the Province to be complicit in the poisoning of even one more Grassy Narrow child.”
“Grassy Narrows requires control over our land resources for our people to recover from the devastating impacts of mercury pollution on our health, culture, and economy,” said Grassy Narrows Chief Fobister. “Our people have suffered far too long from harmful decisions imposed on our people against our will.”
An independent report by world renowned Japanese mercury expert Dr. Harada found that 79% of Grassy Narrows residents tested in 2002 and 2004 had Minamata Disease (MD), MD with complications, or possible MD (Harada et. Al, 2005). Minamata Disease, a term for mercury poisoning, is named after the Japanese town of Minamata where Dr. Harada first exposed industrial mercury poisoning in the 1960’s.
This conflicts with Health Canada’s assertion from the 1990’s that 0% of Grassy Narrows patients examined were at risk due to the levels of mercury in their system, leading them to stop testing Grassy Narrows residents for mercury.
Grassy Narrows calls on ON to fund permanent community run environmental monitoring station; 2010 study shows mercury in fish still often above safe level
Fifty years ago this month, in March 1962 Dryden Chemicals began dumping an estimated 10 metric tonnes of mercury into the Wabigoon River, contaminating the fish which formed the subsistence and economy of three Indigenous communities Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows), Wabaseemoong (White Dog), and some members of Wabauskang who lived at Quibell. Half a century later residents of Grassy Narrows are still grappling with the long term health, social, and economic impacts of this infamous act of environmental racism. Mercury levels in Grassy Narrows fish have yet to return to safe levels.
“The government has allowed the logging companies to destroy our forest and give us back only disease and sickness and death,” said Judy Da Silva, a mother and community organizer in Grassy Narrows. “We are calling on McGuinty to help us establish a permanent Grassy Narrows run environmental monitoring station so we can inform and protect our people from the ongoing damage that pollution and logging are inflicting on our bodies and on our children.”
A 2010 study by Grassy Narrows for the First Nations Environmental Contaminants Program found that 100% of fish flesh samples from the English-Wabigoon river area had mercury levels above the level at which Health Canada recommends against consumption by people who consume a lot of fish (0.2mg/kg).
"The exclusive land bases held by Aboriginal peoples are, in most cases, only a small fraction of the much larger areas that constituted their original homelands. These traditional lands are now shared with other groups, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. While Aboriginal people generally do not dispute the need to share these territories with others, they emphasize that they have strong ties to their original homelands that involve special rights and responsibilities. Aboriginal jurisdiction over traditional territories is inherent and exists independently of any recognition by the governments of Canada and the provinces. From this perspective, agreements regarding shared lands and resources should be based on the principle of co-jurisdiction.
In the late 1960s, people in the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog First Nations populations started to suffer symptoms of mercury poisoning. Several Japanese doctors who had been involved ...
It occurred in the Canadian province of Ontario, in 1970, and severely affected two First Nation communities in Northwestern Ontario following consumption of local fish contaminated with mercury, and one First Nation in Southern Ontario due to illegal disposal of industrial chemical waste. ( I"ll research that one..community started with an A & have no boys being born)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Minamata_disease
http://freegrassy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Mercury_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
&
http://intercontinentalcry.org/mercury-poisoning-in-grassy-narrows-worse-than-ever/
http://freegrassy.org/
http://manitoulinislandindex.com/manitoulinsshame.html
Rafting down the Albany River to the Ring of Fire
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1006854--rafting-to-the-ring-of-fire#article
&
http://intercontinentalcry.org/environmental-injustice-resistance-why-we-need-to-support-ki/
&
But what is happening in Sarnia, on the US Canadian border, is increasingly turning the spotlight on pollution.
The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have long lived in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far from Detroit. Their right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much of it was taken over by industry in the 1960s.
Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the world's most extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent of Canada's entire output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other chemical compounds. The air stinks, and the ground is contaminated with high levels of dangerous pollutants.
... Among them was Ada Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits on the community's council. She and her sister had eight daughters between them, and only one son.
She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, Until 1993 girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number of male births started plummeting.
She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and together they published an article in a leading scientific journal. It reported "a significant ongoing decrease in the number of male births beginning in the early 1990s".
http://cleanaircanada.blogspot.ca/2008/11/pollution-where-have-all-boys-gone.html
&
ImageFor example, whole ecosystems on the West Coast are being destroyed by the practice of diverting water from rivers that flow through Native land for use by big cities. Restoring natural river flows would improve the environment and preserve fish, like salmon, which are important to Native ceremonies involving males and to men’s roles as providers.
Goldtooth observes an even more direct connection: many Native communities are fighting for their lives in a battle against toxic chemical polluters. Pollution near Sarnia, Ontario at the Aamjiwnaang Chippewa reserve is so bad locals refer to the area as “Chemical Valley.”
The pollution has skewed birth ratios, and two girls are now born for every one boy. Males in the community are quite literally at risk. Toxicity tests have found as many as 36 different toxic chemicals within the bodies of individual members.
“The connection between environment and chemical politics are killing our families,” Goldtooth said. “Tribes are losing language and culture, the sacredness of mother earth, and the connection between it, families, and life.”
http://www.frontlinesol.com/MMFG/newsletter/December09/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation
&
http://www.lubicon.org/
( newer)
&
http://www.lubicon.ca/
(older)
In 1985 the Lubicon Cree filed a formal complaint to the U.N. which pushed both levels of Canadian gov't to react. Alberta set their ombudsman to investigate but his mandate excluded both the landclaim ( which was the foundation) & the actions of said O&G co.
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/humanr.htm
more backgrounders:
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/negp/ho85_84.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/negp/ls930330.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/wcc.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/neg.htm
(from 2002-2009)
This is how it worked: the lower courts could have held that those who would assert unextinguished aboriginal rights must be able to show that they con't to pursue as was their inherent right since no treaty had ever been made with them, - the gov't liked to say they were included in Treaty 8 signed in 1899, although they never signed it, nor took scrip for it nor sold it, nor ceded it to anybody nor lost it in battle.
In 1952 when the Lubicon remarked to the feds that they were still waiting for the reserve - it was remarked that both levels of gov't wanted the Lubicon to move the reserve to a more convenient place.
A Diand memo revealed " There were so many inquires from oil companies to explore the area that it was becoming an embarrassment to state that it could not be entered." Other people now want the mineral rights , which both levels of gov'ts admitted were included in the original reserve proposed in 1940."
When in 1953 the Lubicons rejected the notion of a closer reserve, the provincial gov't demanded from DIAND an answer about the reserve's location within 30 days or it would be struck from the record. So for the next few years DIAND transferred members to other bands or involuntarily struck from all band roles-called enfranchisement so ...
The level of productivity you get from raw materials depends entirely on how fast you can pull them out of the ground. No matter what resource you're harvesting, the rate you extract it at WILL fall over time. That is because you always take the easy-access stuff first, and then move on to the harder to extract stuff.
Besides that, productivity and prices are related; if you become too productive, start pulling too much stuff out at once, then the price for the resource will fall, and then you'll lose whatever effeciency gains you had.
That means that your productivity levels WILL fall over time. It will take more work to get less and less product out of the ground. Incomes will fall, standards of living will lower, and the whole province will become more and more impoverished. That is a simple fact of relying on these industries.
In short, Hudak is completely wrong about the future of Ontario, just like Harper is wrong about the future of Canada. Natural resources are the starting point for the economy, not the end.
"Between 1979 & 1982 more than 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of the Lubicon community. Hunting & trapping trails were taken over & turned into private oil-co. roads with signs/guards/gates. Traplines were systemically bulldozed on orders from the province & oil companies.Game was deliberately chased out of the area by firing rifles into the air, a sport entered into with such enthusiasm that some workers described it as being "almost like a competition". On October 15,1988, the Cree people of Lubicon Lake in northern Alberta, after 14 years of fruitless negotiation about their landclaims, established a blockade on roads leading into their traditional lands. On October 20, 1988 the RCMP arrived witha force of fifity officers, smashing the barricades & arresting 27 people. Between 1979 & 1983 the # of moose taken by Lubicon Lake people for food dropped from an average of more than 200 to under 20 per year.Trapping income dropped from $5,000 to $400.00. Local hide & handicraft buyers were told not to buy from Lubicon lake. Dependence of welfare soared from under 10% in 1981 to 95% by 1983.
Destruction of the Lubicon traditional economy & way of life wasn't simply the "unfortunate result of contact."
http://cueflash.com/decks/Law_test_prep
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp406-e.htm
http://iog.ca/sites/iog/files/strong_ab_gov.pdf
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-justice.htm
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72337234/ABORIGINAL-RIGHTS-ARE-HUMAN-RIGHTS
http://nlc-bnc.ca/caninfo/ep034.htm
In Short, it is a LEGAL DUTY imposed by the Court on Gov't to Consult and Accommodate ... Much like other Canadian Court decisions on Aboriginal issues, .... they had to litigate to prove their Rights & fight a Provincial infringement. ...
[PPT]
Conceptualizing the Honour of the Crown
www.nalma.ca/1,%202,%203%20Gathering/.../PwrPnt%20Consultation.ppt
&
http://www.sterritt.com/papers/01-032002-njs.pdf
( course I know Neil Sterritt & Joe Sanders...
&
http://www.paullewandowski.com/links/alllinks.html
The provincial governments has no choice but to negotiate "Our issues are well documented - court cases and the constitution. Jurisprudence cases across this country recognize our aboriginal and treaty rights, so they have to negotiate, they have no choice. They're deeply obligated to sit down and talk to us. They need our consent."
Grassy Narrows has long argued it only agreed in 1873 to sign a treaty with Canada involving the Keewatin lands north of Kenora on a promise that the federal government would protect its traditional ways of life.
Grassy Narrows' lawyers said the ruling would have reverberations across Canada for other First Nations fighting to protect traditional lands.
Ontario has provincial jurisdiction over timber and mining rights.
The provincial government has for years been selling timber leases to large forestry companies that have clear-cut large swaths of the region.
Superior Court Justice Mary Sanderson ruled Ontario has no right to infringe on rights protected by federal treaty — and urged governments to live up to their promises.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/17/grassy-narrows-legal-victory.html
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003983
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
http://www.bayefsky.com/docs.php/area/jurisprudence/treaty/ccpr/opt/0/node/4/filename/128_canada167_1984
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/128_canada167_1984.php
Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Communication No. 167/1984 (26 March 1990), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40) at 1 (1990).
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/session45/167-1984.htm