Petition against future tailings ponds disasters . . . .

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Time for a hold on new B.C. mine proposals

British Columbians watched news coverage of the Mount Polley Mine
disaster with shock and concern after a collapsed dam released almost 15
million cubic metres of toxic effluent into the salmon-rich Quesnel
River systems. In addition to concerns for area residents' immediate
health and safety, dead fish are appearing and there are fears the spill
could cause harm right up to the Fraser River.

While full impacts of this disaster have yet to be tallied, we know that
water, salmon, human health and local jobs are at risk — all precious
B.C. resources. Fish spawning and rearing grounds in Hazeltine Creek,
Polley Lake and Quesnel Lake have been damaged, likely for years to
come; a full water-use ban for the region is in effect; a state of local
emergency has been declared; and thousands of people wait to learn what
this will do to salmon now beginning their journey up the Fraser to spawn.

While we wait for answers on how this environmental disaster was allowed
to happen, questions are being raised about just how our mines are being
operated and regulated.

Years ago, the mining company raised concerns about its ability to
manage tailings from this mine. Despite this, production was ramped up,
placing even greater strain on an already-stressed structure. Daily
production of ore was increased from 18,000 tonnes per day in 2009 to
more than 23,000 tonnes by 2014.

While structural assessments and contingency plans were called for, none
were forthcoming. This event may just be the tip of the
structural-failure iceberg when it comes to containing toxic mine waste.
From 2009 to 2012, there were 12 "dangerous occurrences" reported at
tailings ponds across B.C.

What else is at risk?

B.C.'s mining industry is expanding faster than ever. Two new mines are
expected to start production this year, five more projects are permitted
or under construction, seven expansions are approved and 20 more mines
and expansions are moving through the environmental assessment process.

With timelines reduced and processes streamlined for environmental
assessments to fast track new mine approvals, we can expect more of
these kinds of devastating events.

It's time to take another look at whether B.C. mining regulations are
serving the economy, environment and our communities.

We're asking the B.C. government to:

: Implement immediate, province-wide mandatory inspections of all
tailings ponds with assessed high-risk structures
: Delay approval of any new B.C. mines until tailings management plans
demonstrate they're using best available technologies instead of
low-cost driven alternatives

PETITION:

http://action2.davidsuzuki.org/toxic-mining-disaster/?utm_campaign=BCMining&utm_source=EM1&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BCmine_link2&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRolv6%2FJZKXonjHpfsX56OQsXqO1lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4FTspqI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFS7jNMbZkz7gOXRE%3D

[Alan Baker]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Time for a hold on new B.C. mine proposals

What in your life are YOU willing to give up if mining is no longer
allowed, Karen?

Or will you be fine as long as the mining is happening somewhere else?

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by Alan Baker

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Time for a hold on new B.C. mine proposals

What in your life are YOU willing to give up if mining is no longer
allowed, Karen?
Or will you be fine as long as the mining is happening somewhere else?

Let me make it simple for a simple-minded person like you, Baker . . . .

If you use a septic tank for your toilets, do you provide a proper
containment system for it which is regularly cleaned out, or do you
allow your shit to accumulate in ponds next to your water well?

[Greg Carr]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by Alan Baker

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Time for a hold on new B.C. mine proposals

What in your life are YOU willing to give up if mining is no longer
allowed, Karen?
Or will you be fine as long as the mining is happening somewhere else?

Let me make it simple for a simple-minded person like you, Baker . . . .
If you use a septic tank for your toilets, do you provide a proper
containment system for it which is regularly cleaned out, or do you
allow your shit to accumulate in ponds next to your water well?

That is actually clever.

[TomP]

This is the end result allowing companies to write their own regulations
for the government regulators. The disaster at Lac Megantic comes to
mind also.

Here is what will happen: The public will get all up in arms and want
justice done to the perpetrators of the disaster. Facing a huge court
battle and costs the Mount Polley Mine will declare bankruptcy and leave
the clean up bill to the B.C. and federal governments. The assets, like
the mineral rights, will be picked up by the parent corporation and the
process will begin again.

That's what happened at Lac Megantic..

http://globalnews.ca/news/1495505/a-closer-look-at-imperial-metals-corporation-and-the-mount-polley-mine/


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by TomP
This is the end result allowing companies to write their own regulations
for the government regulators. The disaster at Lac Megantic comes to
mind also.
Here is what will happen: The public will get all up in arms and want
justice done to the perpetrators of the disaster. Facing a huge court
battle and costs the Mount Polley Mine will declare bankruptcy and leave
the clean up bill to the B.C. and federal governments. The assets, like
the mineral rights, will be picked up by the parent corporation and the
process will begin again.
That's what happened at Lac Megantic..
http://globalnews.ca/news/1495505/a-closer-look-at-imperial-metals-corporation-and-the-mount-polley-mine/

You know, I hate to agree with such a pessimistic prediction, but I
suspect you could be right. It's been like that for EVERY environmental
disaster I can remember, going back to the Exxon Valdez and more
recently the BP spill off the coast of Mexico and Florida. Courts . .
lawsuits . . . lawyers getting delays . . . people forgetting. But the
environment of those areas will not be the same for generations.

So maybe the natives of our country have got the right idea after all:
take it back to basics. Grab your rifle, get your people together, and
stand in the way of the bulldozers or trucks that plan to 'develop'
pristine land.
Don't involve the lawyers. Don't involve the courts. Don't involve
petitions or appeals or the usual lengthy, often useless, methods of
protecting our land. Just stand there in the way of those corporate
machines moving to destroy or endanger more of our land and air and
water - and dare them to replicate Tiananmen Square in Canada.

It worked in protecting the rainforests of Clayoquot Sound on the west
coast of Vancouver Island. A whole lot of people were intimidated by
government and their police forces through arrests and fines, but the
people went back or were replaced by still more people. It was knows as
'the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history'. Maybe
that's how the people of this country need to start thinking: 'It may
be my neighbour's land today, but they can come for mine tomorrow.'
Government has no business giving profit-seeking corporate bodies the
rights to OUR land. All development permits should be approved by any
and all citizens who feel they will be affected by those permits being
allowed. We've got to assume the role of government once again.

[TomP]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
This is the end result allowing companies to write their own regulations
for the government regulators. The disaster at Lac Megantic comes to
mind also.
Here is what will happen: The public will get all up in arms and want
justice done to the perpetrators of the disaster. Facing a huge court
battle and costs the Mount Polley Mine will declare bankruptcy and leave
the clean up bill to the B.C. and federal governments. The assets, like
the mineral rights, will be picked up by the parent corporation and the
process will begin again.
That's what happened at Lac Megantic..
http://globalnews.ca/news/1495505/a-closer-look-at-imperial-metals-corporation-and-the-mount-polley-mine/

You know, I hate to agree with such a pessimistic prediction, but I
suspect you could be right. It's been like that for EVERY environmental
disaster I can remember, going back to the Exxon Valdez and more
recently the BP spill off the coast of Mexico and Florida. Courts . .
lawsuits . . . lawyers getting delays . . . people forgetting. But the
environment of those areas will not be the same for generations.
take it back to basics. Grab your rifle, get your people together, and
stand in the way of the bulldozers or trucks that plan to 'develop'
pristine land.
Don't involve the lawyers. Don't involve the courts. Don't involve
petitions or appeals or the usual lengthy, often useless, methods of
protecting our land. Just stand there in the way of those corporate
machines moving to destroy or endanger more of our land and air and
water - and dare them to replicate Tiananmen Square in Canada.
It worked in protecting the rainforests of Clayoquot Sound on the west
coast of Vancouver Island. A whole lot of people were intimidated by
government and their police forces through arrests and fines, but the
people went back or were replaced by still more people. It was knows as
'the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history'. Maybe
that's how the people of this country need to start thinking: 'It may
be my neighbour's land today, but they can come for mine tomorrow.'
Government has no business giving profit-seeking corporate bodies the
rights to OUR land. All development permits should be approved by any
and all citizens who feel they will be affected by those permits being
allowed. We've got to assume the role of government once again.

I don't understand how a corporation can be given 'person' status. With
that ranking corporations are granted rights as a person and can use
their wealth to influence politicians and judges. The law that gives
'person' status to a corporation is doing the work of God. The rights of
citizens should be far above any corporate rights.

If these companies and their Board of Directors were held responsible
for the actions of their companies we would see a lot less of these
disasters. It would only take a few CEOs to spend some serious time
behind bars for the actions of their companies to change attitudes.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by TomP
I don't understand how a corporation can be given 'person' status. With
that ranking corporations are granted rights as a person and can use
their wealth to influence politicians and judges. The law that gives
'person' status to a corporation is doing the work of God. The rights of
citizens should be far above any corporate rights.

I wonder if you're confusing 'separate legal entity' with 'person
status'. They're not the same.

Corporations are set up to protect INDIVIDUALS within those companies
from being sued or driven into bankruptcy or even being found guilty,
for the actions of a company.
IOW, when Exxon had the giant spill, the individuals who had voting
rights or shares or were directors, could not be held individually
liable. The company had to be sued.
Individuals could only be charged if they were prosecuted in a criminal
court for their actions which directly related to the spill. Someone
who voted at a directors' meeting could not be held criminally liable
unless he was part of a negligent or culpable ignorance action.

The wealth that you mention used to influence politicians comes from the
corporation, rarely the individuals who are running or working for the
company. That's why the Liberal government of Jean Chretien had the law
changed to limit campaign donations from corporations or unions or
associations. Exxon or Imperial Oil could easily write out a cheque for
$1 million dollars to the Harper Conservative Party or the Liberals and
some of the largest unions could easily write one out to the New
Democrats and Liberals. When it was changed to 'individuals only' and a
limit of $1,200 per individual was set, the game changed.

Now the corporations are playing a different game to be able to still
contribute huge sums to their favoured political party, but they're
being sneaky about how they do it. Several Conservatives were elected
by corporations that sent in hundreds of 'individual' cheques in varying
amounts, and under individual's names of people working for their
company. Some even went so far as to reimburse those individuals for
more money than the amount they wrote in the cheque. Who's going to
complain about that? Some individuals working for some companies didn't
even know this was being done using their names, until they got receipts
back from the party involved or Canada Revenue questioned duplicate
receipts that were sent to them. A corporate-friendly, rightwing party
will always find a way to cheat. See also the current court case of
Dean Del Mastro (of course, a Conservative) who exceeded EXPENSE limits
so that he could put out a whole lot more advertising for himself than
other candidates. Where there's a will, there's a way. That's why
Elections Canada was asking for more enforcement power, and instead was
met by reductions in enforcement powers, by Harper.

Post by TomP
If these companies and their Board of Directors were held responsible
for the actions of their companies we would see a lot less of these
disasters. It would only take a few CEOs to spend some serious time
behind bars for the actions of their companies to change attitudes.

They CAN be held responsible under separate proceedings. However,
class-action lawsuits after such disasters have to be made against the
corporation, not individuals. And for good reasons too: the
corporation has a helluva lot more monetary assets than the individuals
who run the company. Payouts can be in the billions from such mega
entities, whereas they'd be peanuts from individuals. Doesn't stop
those affected by the disasters from going after the directors who
purposely took short cuts or ignored warnings. I believe that's what's
going on in the Lac Megantic case. $25 million (which is peanuts) has
been awarded to those who suffered losses from the explosion by the
insurance company for the railway. But the actual railway itself can be
liquidated and so of the proceeds of that sale can also flow to the
people of Lac Megantic.
The cleanup alone of the disaster site is between $200 million and $500
million.

But there are a few INDIVIDUALS who are being sued separately from the
corporate entity:

Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railways and three of its employees are each
charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death, one for
each victim of the crash.
If convicted, the men could face life sentences.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/locomotives-from-bankrupt-mma-railway-sold-at-auction/

[TomP]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
I don't understand how a corporation can be given 'person' status. With
that ranking corporations are granted rights as a person and can use
their wealth to influence politicians and judges. The law that gives
'person' status to a corporation is doing the work of God. The rights of
citizens should be far above any corporate rights.

I wonder if you're confusing 'separate legal entity' with 'person
status'. They're not the same.
Corporations are set up to protect INDIVIDUALS within those companies
from being sued or driven into bankruptcy or even being found guilty,
for the actions of a company.
IOW, when Exxon had the giant spill, the individuals who had voting
rights or shares or were directors, could not be held individually
liable. The company had to be sued.
Individuals could only be charged if they were prosecuted in a criminal
court for their actions which directly related to the spill. Someone
who voted at a directors' meeting could not be held criminally liable
unless he was part of a negligent or culpable ignorance action.
The wealth that you mention used to influence politicians comes from the
corporation, rarely the individuals who are running or working for the
company. That's why the Liberal government of Jean Chretien had the law
changed to limit campaign donations from corporations or unions or
associations. Exxon or Imperial Oil could easily write out a cheque for
$1 million dollars to the Harper Conservative Party or the Liberals and
some of the largest unions could easily write one out to the New
Democrats and Liberals. When it was changed to 'individuals only' and a
limit of $1,200 per individual was set, the game changed.
Now the corporations are playing a different game to be able to still
contribute huge sums to their favoured political party, but they're
being sneaky about how they do it. Several Conservatives were elected
by corporations that sent in hundreds of 'individual' cheques in varying
amounts, and under individual's names of people working for their
company. Some even went so far as to reimburse those individuals for
more money than the amount they wrote in the cheque. Who's going to
complain about that? Some individuals working for some companies didn't
even know this was being done using their names, until they got receipts
back from the party involved or Canada Revenue questioned duplicate
receipts that were sent to them. A corporate-friendly, rightwing party
will always find a way to cheat. See also the current court case of
Dean Del Mastro (of course, a Conservative) who exceeded EXPENSE limits
so that he could put out a whole lot more advertising for himself than
other candidates. Where there's a will, there's a way. That's why
Elections Canada was asking for more enforcement power, and instead was
met by reductions in enforcement powers, by Harper.

Post by TomP
If these companies and their Board of Directors were held responsible
for the actions of their companies we would see a lot less of these
disasters. It would only take a few CEOs to spend some serious time
behind bars for the actions of their companies to change attitudes.

They CAN be held responsible under separate proceedings. However,
class-action lawsuits after such disasters have to be made against the
corporation, not individuals. And for good reasons too: the
corporation has a helluva lot more monetary assets than the individuals
who run the company. Payouts can be in the billions from such mega
entities, whereas they'd be peanuts from individuals. Doesn't stop
those affected by the disasters from going after the directors who
purposely took short cuts or ignored warnings. I believe that's what's
going on in the Lac Megantic case. $25 million (which is peanuts) has
been awarded to those who suffered losses from the explosion by the
insurance company for the railway. But the actual railway itself can be
liquidated and so of the proceeds of that sale can also flow to the
people of Lac Megantic.
The cleanup alone of the disaster site is between $200 million and $500
million.
But there are a few INDIVIDUALS who are being sued separately from the
Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railways and three of its employees are each
charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death, one for
each victim of the crash.
If convicted, the men could face life sentences.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/locomotives-from-bankrupt-mma-railway-sold-at-auction/

You are talking about actions of a corporation. The corporation is the
entity which people who direct that corporation hide behind.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/

The notion that an entity like this has the rights as a person to own
property or to sue other entities is ridiculous. Imagine that we gave
the power of a corporation to a spoon. It can own property and use the
laws of the land to it's benefit and is given corporate rights. To me,
the whole concept is playing us for fools.

It's like the straw man argument that is used on these newsgroups. The
corporation is used as a way to avoid any kind of prosecution for the
puppeteers.

It is this issue that had halted the EU trade agreement.

http://www.canadians.org/no-ceta-exception

Allowing a corporation to sue a government puts corporate rights over
the rights of citizens. That undermines elected governments and makes a
sham of democracy.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918

The individuals behind the corporation should be held responsible for
the actions of that corporation. There is no incentive for companies to
act responsibly unless there are repercussions.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by TomP
You are talking about actions of a corporation. The corporation is the
entity which people who direct that corporation hide behind.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/
The notion that an entity like this has the rights as a person to own
property or to sue other entities is ridiculous. Imagine that we gave
the power of a corporation to a spoon. It can own property and use the
laws of the land to it's benefit and is given corporate rights. To me,
the whole concept is playing us for fools.
It's like the straw man argument that is used on these newsgroups. The
corporation is used as a way to avoid any kind of prosecution for the
puppeteers.
It is this issue that had halted the EU trade agreement.
http://www.canadians.org/no-ceta-exception
Allowing a corporation to sue a government puts corporate rights over
the rights of citizens. That undermines elected governments and makes a
sham of democracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918
The individuals behind the corporation should be held responsible for
the actions of that corporation. There is no incentive for companies to
act responsibly unless there are repercussions.

All that has to change is this: Free trade agreements must be written
so that corporations can APPEAL any trade blockages or prices of goods
to the World Trade Organization.
If, however, the Agreement between two countries allows for corporations
to sue the other's government, the WTO can't overrule that clause.

When Canada signed on to NAFTA, they didn't put in an exemption clause
for the trade and sale of water - our most precious resource.
If Harper wants to, he can allow licences to private interests to pipe
our water, much like Alberta gives their oil to private interests, and
we're done for.

Mexico, which is also a partner to NAFTA, had the good common sense to
EXEMPT water from being a resource able to be traded or sold.
Those agreements our numb nuts in Ottawa are signing could sign away our
democratic system as we know it. Not to mention drain our country of
water when other countries need water.

The EU agreement is going to be a deadly one if there are not provisions
put in that protect our governments from being sued by corporations.
Remembering, that ALL free trade agreements are being driven by
corporations and businesses anxious to sell their product to more
customers. An example: If we, as provinces, have legislation in place
that limits the size of tailings ponds for the extraction of copper or
gold, and a European or American company buys up the company that is
doing the extracting, they could well decide that any limitations on the
size of those tailings ponds are LIMITING their ability to mine those
resources. And any limitations could be the basis of a law suit against
our PROVINCIAL government under federal trade agreement rules signed by
our FEDERAL government.

Harper would sell his mother to keep the corporations, his sponsors and
supporters, happy. Our resources are money to his coffers and the
environment is an inconvenience on the way to those profits.

Here's a link to the European Union's trade policies:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/
Go forward a couple of pages to: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/ and
you will see a list of their current problems with other countries -
listed as 'investigations'. Take a look at which countries they're
having the most problems with - they're glaring. And yet, Harper & Co
have signed several agreements with those countries and are pushing for
the biggest one yet: major oil export from the tarsands.

If you look at a few of those 'investigations', you'll see that the EU
is fighting off "dumping" by China of huge amounts of product into EU
countries, affecting their own production and prices.

We're paying high fuel prices here in Canada because we chose to sign
onto an agreement with the U.S. and Mexico. We could have kept oil and
gas out of the Agreement, but that is exactly the resource that the
United States was after from us, so there was no 'exempting' happening
on that little item. We could have set any price, any time, in our
exports to the U.S. and Mexico - AND we could have discounted the price
of our own resource to ourselves, as Canadians. Under NAFTA we can't.

Who profited? The Albertan government. The foreign countries who have
licences to extract our oil and gas. The Federal government through
GST/HST and excise taxes.
Who lost? All Canadians who have to drive to get around and all
Canadian businesses that rely on trucking to carry goods.

Free trade agreements are shit. Every country needs to have the right
to limit what it exports, and for what price. It also should have the
right to limit what it imports, and at what price.
"Free trade" agreements undo all that. They promote exploitation of
resources for profit. They kill jobs that could have stayed in our own
country. And they're always driven by corporations, not the average
person.

Right wing politicians will bleat about the necessity for free markets
and 'competition' to regulate prices, but in effect the so-called free
trade agreements are doing just the opposite: they're SETTING prices
across borders to NOT allow varied prices for the same goods. How'd
that work out for Canada? . . . . how much is gas at the pump in the
U.S. as compared to in Canada? How much is any identical electronic
item in the U.S. as compared to Canada? How much does Target charge us
for a TV this side of the border, as compared to what it charges
Americans their side of the border?

The 'rah rah' crowds that are convinced Harper is doing something great
for us as Canadians are the corporations, not the average person.
Although, we see a whole lot of dumb people here joining the
corporations in the 'rah rah' cheers. Our country is up for export.
Our jobs are being exported. We're importing faulty, poorly-made and
dangerous goods from those we trade with. What's to cheer about?

Anyway . . . . long rant to keep out of the hot sun for a while longer .
. . . but nevertheless something everyone should be thinking about as
Harper peddles our most vital strengths to the biggest populations overseas.

[TomP]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
You are talking about actions of a corporation. The corporation is the
entity which people who direct that corporation hide behind.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/
The notion that an entity like this has the rights as a person to own
property or to sue other entities is ridiculous. Imagine that we gave
the power of a corporation to a spoon. It can own property and use the
laws of the land to it's benefit and is given corporate rights. To me,
the whole concept is playing us for fools.
It's like the straw man argument that is used on these newsgroups. The
corporation is used as a way to avoid any kind of prosecution for the
puppeteers.
It is this issue that had halted the EU trade agreement.
http://www.canadians.org/no-ceta-exception
Allowing a corporation to sue a government puts corporate rights over
the rights of citizens. That undermines elected governments and makes a
sham of democracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918
The individuals behind the corporation should be held responsible for
the actions of that corporation. There is no incentive for companies to
act responsibly unless there are repercussions.

All that has to change is this: Free trade agreements must be written
so that corporations can APPEAL any trade blockages or prices of goods
to the World Trade Organization.
If, however, the Agreement between two countries allows for corporations
to sue the other's government, the WTO can't overrule that clause.
When Canada signed on to NAFTA, they didn't put in an exemption clause
for the trade and sale of water - our most precious resource.
If Harper wants to, he can allow licences to private interests to pipe
our water, much like Alberta gives their oil to private interests, and
we're done for.
Mexico, which is also a partner to NAFTA, had the good common sense to
EXEMPT water from being a resource able to be traded or sold.
Those agreements our numb nuts in Ottawa are signing could sign away our
democratic system as we know it. Not to mention drain our country of
water when other countries need water.
The EU agreement is going to be a deadly one if there are not provisions
put in that protect our governments from being sued by corporations.
Remembering, that ALL free trade agreements are being driven by
corporations and businesses anxious to sell their product to more
customers. An example: If we, as provinces, have legislation in place
that limits the size of tailings ponds for the extraction of copper or
gold, and a European or American company buys up the company that is
doing the extracting, they could well decide that any limitations on the
size of those tailings ponds are LIMITING their ability to mine those
resources. And any limitations could be the basis of a law suit against
our PROVINCIAL government under federal trade agreement rules signed by
our FEDERAL government.
Harper would sell his mother to keep the corporations, his sponsors and
supporters, happy. Our resources are money to his coffers and the
environment is an inconvenience on the way to those profits.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/
Go forward a couple of pages to: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/ and
you will see a list of their current problems with other countries -
listed as 'investigations'. Take a look at which countries they're
having the most problems with - they're glaring. And yet, Harper & Co
have signed several agreements with those countries and are pushing for
the biggest one yet: major oil export from the tarsands.
If you look at a few of those 'investigations', you'll see that the EU
is fighting off "dumping" by China of huge amounts of product into EU
countries, affecting their own production and prices.
We're paying high fuel prices here in Canada because we chose to sign
onto an agreement with the U.S. and Mexico. We could have kept oil and
gas out of the Agreement, but that is exactly the resource that the
United States was after from us, so there was no 'exempting' happening
on that little item. We could have set any price, any time, in our
exports to the U.S. and Mexico - AND we could have discounted the price
of our own resource to ourselves, as Canadians. Under NAFTA we can't.
Who profited? The Albertan government. The foreign countries who have
licences to extract our oil and gas. The Federal government through
GST/HST and excise taxes.
Who lost? All Canadians who have to drive to get around and all
Canadian businesses that rely on trucking to carry goods.
Free trade agreements are shit. Every country needs to have the right
to limit what it exports, and for what price. It also should have the
right to limit what it imports, and at what price.
"Free trade" agreements undo all that. They promote exploitation of
resources for profit. They kill jobs that could have stayed in our own
country. And they're always driven by corporations, not the average
person.
Right wing politicians will bleat about the necessity for free markets
and 'competition' to regulate prices, but in effect the so-called free
trade agreements are doing just the opposite: they're SETTING prices
across borders to NOT allow varied prices for the same goods. How'd
that work out for Canada? . . . . how much is gas at the pump in the
U.S. as compared to in Canada? How much is any identical electronic
item in the U.S. as compared to Canada? How much does Target charge us
for a TV this side of the border, as compared to what it charges
Americans their side of the border?
The 'rah rah' crowds that are convinced Harper is doing something great
for us as Canadians are the corporations, not the average person.
Although, we see a whole lot of dumb people here joining the
corporations in the 'rah rah' cheers. Our country is up for export. Our
jobs are being exported. We're importing faulty, poorly-made and
dangerous goods from those we trade with. What's to cheer about?
Anyway . . . . long rant to keep out of the hot sun for a while longer .
. . . but nevertheless something everyone should be thinking about as
Harper peddles our most vital strengths to the biggest populations overseas.

I agree with you that these trade agreements are absolutely horrible for
Canadians. But these free trade agreements limits the governments power
to govern in the best interests of Canadians. They allow corporations
shut down their operations in Canada throwing Canadians out of work, to
move offshore to a country that pays slave wages.

My point is that the corporate model is being used to limit liabilities
of the individuals that run these corporations when disaster strikes.
The original post was about the collapse of the tailings pond berms that
sent toxic sludge in to several lakes and rivers. There have been far
too many examples where corporations pack up and leave the mess for
governments to clean up. I saw a program on the Giant Mine clean up and
it was mentioned that there are more than 2500 sites across Canada where
companies have walked away from the mess they created and the government
has to step in to clean up the mess. There is no incentive for companies
to act responsibly.

What is needed is a system where Board members and even investors will
be forced to pay for the clean up of the mess they left. I know there
will be some that are terrified of that prospect claiming it will hamper
investment. All the investor has to do is get investor insurance for
these situations. Companies that run the risk of having their investors
pay fines and their Board members arrested will have a difficult time
operating as insurance companies refuse to insure them.

Is it too much to ask that the law should treat everyone equally? In the
Lac Megantic disaster there are only employees criminally charged, not
the Board members. The 'Company' that they are hiding behind has been
charged and that company has declared bankruptcy. In that case the
investors and the Board members will get away with murder.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-four-most-expensive-contaminated-sites-1.1218168


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by TomP
I agree with you that these trade agreements are absolutely horrible for
Canadians. But these free trade agreements limits the governments power
to govern in the best interests of Canadians. They allow corporations
shut down their operations in Canada throwing Canadians out of work, to
move offshore to a country that pays slave wages.
My point is that the corporate model is being used to limit liabilities
of the individuals that run these corporations when disaster strikes.
The original post was about the collapse of the tailings pond berms that
sent toxic sludge in to several lakes and rivers. There have been far
too many examples where corporations pack up and leave the mess for
governments to clean up. I saw a program on the Giant Mine clean up and
it was mentioned that there are more than 2500 sites across Canada where
companies have walked away from the mess they created and the government
has to step in to clean up the mess. There is no incentive for companies
to act responsibly.

Only thing our government has to do is get 'up front money' to make sure
that any disaster has a security deposit waiting in the bank.
Instead of taking steps to PROTECT our environment, the governments are
actually making it easier for the companies to operate without what they
term 'red tape'.


Weekly inspections of mining and drillings sites are not red tape.
Making sure there is adequate insurance monies up front before granting
a licence to drill, is not red tape.
Having the ability to shut down an operation that is proving dangerous
to the environment, is not red tape.
None of these things are being done. Instead, corporations are being
'carte blanche' for many operations and even SUBSIDIES (our money) to
get their operations off the ground!

Post by TomP
What is needed is a system where Board members and even investors will
be forced to pay for the clean up of the mess they left. I know there
will be some that are terrified of that prospect claiming it will hamper
investment. All the investor has to do is get investor insurance for
these situations.

The Polley mine operation had some insurance. Seems it won't be nearly
enough to cover the cost of cleanup:

http://www.timescolonist.com/imperial-metals-insurance-likely-not-enough-for-dam-collapse-cleanup-1.1305562

Post by TomP
Companies that run the risk of having their investors
pay fines and their Board members arrested will have a difficult time
operating as insurance companies refuse to insure them.

Their investors can't be held liable under current laws, but the
directors of the company certainly can. That's what's happening in Lac
Megantic.

Post by TomP
Is it too much to ask that the law should treat everyone equally? In the
Lac Megantic disaster there are only employees criminally charged, not
the Board members.

Nope. Look again.
'Chairman of the board Edward Burkhardt’s company Earlston Associates
holds 72.78 per cent of the shares, the Caisse said in a statement.
The Quebec provincial prosecutor’s office said 47 counts of criminal
negligence have been filed against engineer Thomas Harding, manager of
train operations Jean Demaitre, and Richard Labrie, the railway’s
traffic controller, as well as against the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic
Railway Ltd., the defunct railway at the heart of the disaster.'
Burkhardt could well be charged criminally if the facts show he took
short cuts or ignored warnings.

The 'Company' that they are hiding behind has been

Post by TomP
charged and that company has declared bankruptcy. In that case the
investors and the Board members will get away with murder.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-four-most-expensive-contaminated-sites-1.1218168

It may have declared bankruptcy, but there are still assets belonging to
the bankrupt company that are being auctioned off and the proceeds going
to debtors and those who've filed claims from Lac Megantic. Burkhardt
himself has his hands into a lot of other pies. If HE is found guilty
of a criminal act, he can be made to pay a whole lot of money which
would mean his liquidating other assets to satisfy the judgement.

If those three 'employees' now charged, had been incorporated
themselves, their homes and other assets could not be touched. Seems
the chief engineer lived a simple and humble life:

Loading Image...

http://globalnews.ca/news/1326838/three-people-rail-company-face-charges-in-lac-megantic-railway-disaster/

[TomP]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
I agree with you that these trade agreements are absolutely horrible for
Canadians. But these free trade agreements limits the governments power
to govern in the best interests of Canadians. They allow corporations
shut down their operations in Canada throwing Canadians out of work, to
move offshore to a country that pays slave wages.
My point is that the corporate model is being used to limit liabilities
of the individuals that run these corporations when disaster strikes.
The original post was about the collapse of the tailings pond berms that
sent toxic sludge in to several lakes and rivers. There have been far
too many examples where corporations pack up and leave the mess for
governments to clean up. I saw a program on the Giant Mine clean up and
it was mentioned that there are more than 2500 sites across Canada where
companies have walked away from the mess they created and the government
has to step in to clean up the mess. There is no incentive for companies
to act responsibly.

Only thing our government has to do is get 'up front money' to make sure
that any disaster has a security deposit waiting in the bank.
Instead of taking steps to PROTECT our environment, the governments are
actually making it easier for the companies to operate without what they
term 'red tape'.
Weekly inspections of mining and drillings sites are not red tape.
Making sure there is adequate insurance monies up front before granting
a licence to drill, is not red tape.
Having the ability to shut down an operation that is proving dangerous
to the environment, is not red tape.
None of these things are being done. Instead, corporations are being
'carte blanche' for many operations and even SUBSIDIES (our money) to
get their operations off the ground!

Post by TomP
What is needed is a system where Board members and even investors will
be forced to pay for the clean up of the mess they left. I know there
will be some that are terrified of that prospect claiming it will hamper
investment. All the investor has to do is get investor insurance for
these situations.

The Polley mine operation had some insurance. Seems it won't be nearly
http://www.timescolonist.com/imperial-metals-insurance-likely-not-enough-for-dam-collapse-cleanup-1.1305562

Post by TomP
Companies that run the risk of having their investors
pay fines and their Board members arrested will have a difficult time
operating as insurance companies refuse to insure them.

Their investors can't be held liable under current laws, but the
directors of the company certainly can. That's what's happening in Lac
Megantic.

Post by TomP
Is it too much to ask that the law should treat everyone equally? In the
Lac Megantic disaster there are only employees criminally charged, not
the Board members.

Nope. Look again.
'Chairman of the board Edward Burkhardt’s company Earlston Associates
holds 72.78 per cent of the shares, the Caisse said in a statement.
The Quebec provincial prosecutor’s office said 47 counts of criminal
negligence have been filed against engineer Thomas Harding, manager of
train operations Jean Demaitre, and Richard Labrie, the railway’s
traffic controller, as well as against the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic
Railway Ltd., the defunct railway at the heart of the disaster.'
Burkhardt could well be charged criminally if the facts show he took
short cuts or ignored warnings.

Here's the problem with that situation...

"A corporation has separate legal personality in the sense that it is a
legal person separate and distinct from its shareholders, directors and
officers. A corporation may enter into contracts and own property in the
same manner as a natural person. The corporation may also sue and be
sued in its own name. Because a corporation is considered to be a
separate legal entity, it may enter into contracts with its own
shareholders. A corporation may also be convicted of a criminal offence
provided that the criminal provision provides for a fine in lieu of
imprisonment."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/

The company has been charged. The directors are separate from the
company and will not be charged.

The point that can be argued here is that under Canadian Health and
Safety laws the responsibility for safety goes up the chain of command
as it has done here with the charging of these men. The charges stopped
climbing the ladder of responsibility until it came to the company. The
question is: can the company be considered an entity responsible for
safety? The defense lawyer can argue that there must be conscious
thought behind safety concerns which would mean the directors should be
personally responsible. The criminal responsibility should transcend the
corporate entity.

This could be a landmark case which hopefully will make company
directors responsible for future disasters.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса]

Post by TomP
Here's the problem with that situation...
"A corporation has separate legal personality in the sense that it is a
legal person separate and distinct from its shareholders, directors and
officers. A corporation may enter into contracts and own property in the
same manner as a natural person. The corporation may also sue and be
sued in its own name. Because a corporation is considered to be a
separate legal entity, it may enter into contracts with its own
shareholders. A corporation may also be convicted of a criminal offence
provided that the criminal provision provides for a fine in lieu of
imprisonment."
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/
The company has been charged. The directors are separate from the
company and will not be charged.

We don't know that yet. The directors would have to be charged
separately in a different action.

Post by TomP
The point that can be argued here is that under Canadian Health and
Safety laws the responsibility for safety goes up the chain of command
as it has done here with the charging of these men. The charges stopped
climbing the ladder of responsibility until it came to the company. The
question is: can the company be considered an entity responsible for
safety? The defense lawyer can argue that there must be conscious
thought behind safety concerns which would mean the directors should be
personally responsible. The criminal responsibility should transcend the
corporate entity.

That could well happen if the lawsuit against the company finds that
Burkhardt made some decision or gave some directive that endangered the
operation of those trains.
I keep thinking back to the fact that Burkhardt HAD TO BE the director
that requested an EXEMPTION from Transport Canada that he be allowed to
run the trains through Quebec with a single engineer, instead of the
normal, regulated, two engineers. If that exemption is found to be the
cause behind the derailment, then Transport Canada will be as much on
the hook for liability as Burkhardt - in fact, moreso. Burkhardt could
ask, but Transport Canada could have responded: No. End of story. I
suspect Burkhardt and Transport Canada are going to end up pointing the
finger at each other.

Post by TomP
This could be a landmark case which hopefully will make company
directors responsible for future disasters.

Only if they were behind actual acts or disregard for obligations that
caused those disasters. You can't assign blame to a director of a
company where an employee decides to drink while driving a train and
rockets through a crossing and crashes that train. If there was no way
for the directors of that company to know that person was about to
swallow a 26er of rye in a span of an hour, then they should not be held
liable. Insurance companies would have to fill that gap for
compensation. The company could also sue the employee if there was
insurance shortfall.

If all company directors were always held liable for all disasters, you
would never have companies. Period.
No one would want to undertake running a large enterprise for fear one
of their employees might be negligent or revengeful or suddenly snaps
mentally.

Incorporation was set up to protect those individuals running the
companies from being sued as individuals - and losing everything they
own - including the kid's baby carriage and the dog house in the yard.
But it still does not give them protection from being sued as
individuals if they're found to have run that company's operation in a
way that did harm or damage.
________________

An excerpt:
The starting point is the celebrated case of Salomon v. Salomon, in
which it was held
that a corporation is a separate entity distinct from its shareholders
and that a legally
incorporated company has rights and liabilities of its own.

On the premise of this separate legal identity of a corporation a
corporate veil
is thus created in which the actions of the directors are held to be the
actions of
the corporation, and any liability arising from those acts attaches to
the corporation
and not the individual.

Directors are frequently held liable for their tortious and other
behavior, however, either
directly or by “lifting the corporate veil.”
The current bell-wether case for imposition of liability on directors
appears to be
ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd., a 1999 decision of the
Ontario C
ourt of Appeal.

Although this case did much to cut away some of the obfuscation that had
been
introduced into the law regarding directors’ liability, subsequent case law
seems to retain a requirement that there be “ownership” of the offending
act
by the director, over and above the director acting in the ordinary course
of his or her duties.

It seems that it can be generalized that director s will be held to be
directly liable or there
will be a “lifting of the corporate veil” such as to impose civil
liability on directors for
criminally or near criminally culpable acts in the following circumstances:
(1) where the corporation was formed for the express purpose of doing a
wrongful
or unlawful act;
(2) when the director either expressly or impliedly directed or procured
that a wrongful thing
be done;
(3) where the corporation is being used as a cloak to cover fraud or
improper conduct; and
(4) where it would be “flagrantly opposed to justice” not to lift the
corporate veil and impose
liability.

[TomP]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
Here's the problem with that situation...
"A corporation has separate legal personality in the sense that it is a
legal person separate and distinct from its shareholders, directors and
officers. A corporation may enter into contracts and own property in the
same manner as a natural person. The corporation may also sue and be
sued in its own name. Because a corporation is considered to be a
separate legal entity, it may enter into contracts with its own
shareholders. A corporation may also be convicted of a criminal offence
provided that the criminal provision provides for a fine in lieu of
imprisonment."
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/corporation-law/
The company has been charged. The directors are separate from the
company and will not be charged.

We don't know that yet. The directors would have to be charged
separately in a different action.

Post by TomP
The point that can be argued here is that under Canadian Health and
Safety laws the responsibility for safety goes up the chain of command
as it has done here with the charging of these men. The charges stopped
climbing the ladder of responsibility until it came to the company. The
question is: can the company be considered an entity responsible for
safety? The defense lawyer can argue that there must be conscious
thought behind safety concerns which would mean the directors should be
personally responsible. The criminal responsibility should transcend the
corporate entity.

That could well happen if the lawsuit against the company finds that
Burkhardt made some decision or gave some directive that endangered the
operation of those trains.
I keep thinking back to the fact that Burkhardt HAD TO BE the director
that requested an EXEMPTION from Transport Canada that he be allowed to
run the trains through Quebec with a single engineer, instead of the
normal, regulated, two engineers. If that exemption is found to be the
cause behind the derailment, then Transport Canada will be as much on
the hook for liability as Burkhardt - in fact, moreso. Burkhardt could
ask, but Transport Canada could have responded: No. End of story. I
suspect Burkhardt and Transport Canada are going to end up pointing the
finger at each other.

Post by TomP
This could be a landmark case which hopefully will make company
directors responsible for future disasters.

Only if they were behind actual acts or disregard for obligations that
caused those disasters. You can't assign blame to a director of a
company where an employee decides to drink while driving a train and
rockets through a crossing and crashes that train. If there was no way
for the directors of that company to know that person was about to
swallow a 26er of rye in a span of an hour, then they should not be held
liable. Insurance companies would have to fill that gap for
compensation. The company could also sue the employee if there was
insurance shortfall.
If all company directors were always held liable for all disasters, you
would never have companies. Period.
No one would want to undertake running a large enterprise for fear one
of their employees might be negligent or revengeful or suddenly snaps
mentally.
Incorporation was set up to protect those individuals running the
companies from being sued as individuals - and losing everything they
own - including the kid's baby carriage and the dog house in the yard.
But it still does not give them protection from being sued as
individuals if they're found to have run that company's operation in a
way that did harm or damage.
________________
The starting point is the celebrated case of Salomon v. Salomon, in
which it was held
that a corporation is a separate entity distinct from its shareholders
and that a legally
incorporated company has rights and liabilities of its own.
On the premise of this separate legal identity of a corporation a
corporate veil
is thus created in which the actions of the directors are held to be the
actions of
the corporation, and any liability arising from those acts attaches to
the corporation
and not the individual.
Directors are frequently held liable for their tortious and other
behavior, however, either
directly or by “lifting the corporate veil.”
The current bell-wether case for imposition of liability on directors
appears to be
ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd., a 1999 decision of the
Ontario C
ourt of Appeal.
Although this case did much to cut away some of the obfuscation that had
been
introduced into the law regarding directors’ liability, subsequent case law
seems to retain a requirement that there be “ownership” of the offending
act
by the director, over and above the director acting in the ordinary course
of his or her duties.
It seems that it can be generalized that director s will be held to be
directly liable or there
will be a “lifting of the corporate veil” such as to impose civil
liability on directors for
(1) where the corporation was formed for the express purpose of doing a
wrongful
or unlawful act;
(2) when the director either expressly or impliedly directed or procured
that a wrongful thing
be done;
(3) where the corporation is being used as a cloak to cover fraud or
improper conduct; and
(4) where it would be “flagrantly opposed to justice” not to lift the
corporate veil and impose
liability.

I agree that an employee of a company should be held responsible for
their actions if they break the law. But it is the responsibility of the
company to do a risk assessment of the job and devise a safe method for
the employee to follow. Then the employee must be trained about the job
and understand his/her duties.

From the little the public has been told it is very apparent to me that
this procedure was not followed. The train engineer has been accused of
not supplying sufficient braking. That is a generalized statement. It's
like someone saying 'Be careful'. It depends how many cars there are,
how heavy they are and how much of a slope the railcars were sitting on
etc.

Then there's the fact that the engine caught fire. There should have
been a clear procedure to follow in that situation. There should have
been an emergency number posted with clear instructions to the engineer
what to do in this situation. Apparently he was being given mixed
instructions indicating no one knew what to do.

Then there is the fact that only one engineer was used. That's ridiculous.

If Burkhardt was going to be charged, he should have been charged with
the rest of the men. To me that indicates he will use the corporate
shield to protect himself against prosecution.

I truly hope that the court will recognize that company executives that
created this cavalier attitude towards safety in order to save money are
even more guilty than these men charged. But I have my doubts.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[JM]

Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса

Post by TomP
This is the end result allowing companies to write their own
regulations for the government regulators. The disaster at Lac
Megantic comes to mind also.
Here is what will happen: The public will get all up in arms and want
justice done to the perpetrators of the disaster. Facing a huge court
battle and costs the Mount Polley Mine will declare bankruptcy and
leave the clean up bill to the B.C. and federal governments. The
assets, like the mineral rights, will be picked up by the parent
corporation and the process will begin again.
That's what happened at Lac Megantic..
http://globalnews.ca/news/1495505/a-closer-look-at-imperial-metals-corporation-and-the-mount-polley-mine/

You know, I hate to agree with such a pessimistic prediction, but I
suspect you could be right. It's been like that for EVERY
environmental disaster I can remember, going back to the Exxon
Valdez
and more recently the BP spill off the coast of Mexico and Florida.
Courts . . lawsuits . . . lawyers getting delays . . . people
forgetting. But the environment of those areas will not be the same
for generations.
take it back to basics. Grab your rifle, get your people together,
and stand in the way of the bulldozers or trucks that plan to
'develop' pristine land.
Don't involve the lawyers. Don't involve the courts. Don't involve
petitions or appeals or the usual lengthy, often useless, methods of
protecting our land. Just stand there in the way of those corporate
machines moving to destroy or endanger more of our land and air and
water - and dare them to replicate Tiananmen Square in Canada.
It worked in protecting the rainforests of Clayoquot Sound on the west
coast of Vancouver Island. A whole lot of people were intimidated by
government and their police forces through arrests and fines, but the
people went back or were replaced by still more people. It was
knows
as 'the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history'.
Maybe
that's how the people of this country need to start thinking: 'It may
be my neighbour's land today, but they can come for mine tomorrow.'
Government has no business giving profit-seeking corporate bodies the
rights to OUR land. All development permits should be approved by any
and all citizens who feel they will be affected by those permits being
allowed. We've got to assume the role of government once again.

Do you know, Karen, I have to agree with you up to one point: a human
error is always possible irrespective of the precautions taken by the
CEOs, the Corporations or whatever. The owners of the Exxon Valdez
never expected their captain to be inebriated while on duty. The
owners of the Maine and Atlantic Railway never expected one of their
engineers to "forget" to properly apply the brakes on top a a hill
close to the village of Lac Mégantic. BC Ferries never expected one of
their employees to do whatever he did with a former lover while on
watch at night in a narrow passage -- and probably never expected that
the Union representing such employee would fight tooth and nail to
defend him.

Human error is possible. Unforeseen disasters will happen irrespective
of the "precautionary measures" legally enacted or industry imposed or
recommanded. Building codes enacted by the public authorities -- hey,
they're public, must be your friends -- provide for all kinds of
"precautionary measures" to be built into houses and we still witness
quite a few house fires every day. Who do you blame? Your friendly
public authorities? The builders? The irresponsible dwellers (smokers,
house cooks, people trying to warm themselves with defective devices,
people overloading power outlets)? This being said, it's obviously not
in the best interest of either the employees or the owners of a
Corporation to have to deal with a disaster. Does that mean that one
has to "nix" every project on the basis that some kind of unforseeable
situation could happen? Maybe yes, maybe no...