Why do we have a “Maurice Strong lackey” inside OUR Government trying to ruin it?

Posted: February 8, 2013 in Uncategorized

Lackey: Lackey is typically used as a derogatory term for a servant with little or no self-respect who belittles himself in order to gain an advantage.[2] Such advantage is often assumed to be slight, temporary and often illusory.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has released a report this week that basically calls on our Government in Ottawa to increase the size of  the Environmental bureaucracy to force companies in the energy sector to adhere to even tougher regulations when it comes to exploration and development!

Increase the influence that Environmental Non Governmental Organizations will have over development (Oil Sands protesters?) and basically stop or halt all development of our Natural Resources until these “eco-whacked out greenies” have their say.

Here’s an idea. Eliminate this office inside Government and label anyone spouting this none sense as “treasonous behaviour”. Companies that are actually hiring people to do honest work and develop natural resources for industrial development are very concerned about their environmental impact. Why would a company want to destroy the very lands and resources that they need to keep them functioning? They certainly don’t need a “pencil-neck” sitting in a “fat cushy leather tax payer funded leather chair” telling them what the “reality” of their actions are having on their development sites. They also certainly don’t need a gutless Government who gives people like this any credence whatsoever when the statements being issued are all motivated by a United Nation’s group of social criminals!

Peter Foster: Unsustainable oversight

Peter Foster | Feb 7, 2013

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Scott Vaughan speaks during a press conference in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Scott Vaughan speaks during a press conference in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Commissioner is joined at the hip with eco-radicalism

Was there ever a nanogram of doubt that this week’s report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development would be a tale of woe?

When it comes to bureaucratic overseers, if you’re not stoking concern, you’re not doing your job, which is primarily to promote more bureaucratic oversight. Indeed, that was Commissioner Scott Vaughan’s bottom line: since there is a boom in natural resources, there needs to be “a boom in terms of environmental protection.”

The mainstream media duly regurgitated the message that the Harper government was failing to protect Canadians, and even celebrated Mr. Vaughan as a “hero” for “pushing” Ottawa.

Unfortunately, Mr. Vaughan’s bureaucratic vision suffers from all the astigmatic assumptions one would expect from anybody whose job title includes the weasel word “sustainable.” The main ones are that more regulation is always needed, and always good, and that without it, corporations would run roughshod over a desolate landscape.

Mr. Vaughan suggested that a bureaucratic boom was particularly needed in oversight of offshore exploration and drilling “should operators fail to respond appropriately to a major oil spill.” Related to this, Mr. Vaughan fretted about the low levels of financial assurance that companies have to give when it comes to environmental risks, a theme eagerly taken up in the House of Commons by NDP leader Tom Mulcair, who accused Mr. Harper of allowing his corporate buddies “off the hook.”

For support on both issues, Mr. Vaughan cited the tragic 2010 BP Macondo blowout off the U.S. Gulf Coast, which, he said, had cost US$40-billion. However, BP’s legal liability was only US$75-million, and, as we know, it walked away from the disaster saying “We’re not paying any more.”

Oh hang on, of course it didn’t. That US$40-billion refers to the cost to BP, which is threatening to rise to US$90-billion if a number of Ecuadorian-style lawsuits by Gulf coast states are successful.

At the time of the blowout, the U.S. administration — seeking to avoid blame for its own incompetence — suggested that BP had to have a “boot on the neck” to clean up. In fact, BP, like any other company, requires no government coercion to behave “responsibly.” All it needs is the desire to maintain its reputation.

Naturally, the idea that companies might actually be concerned about their reputations, even if only because they have enormous market value, is something that the sustainability crowd likes to play down (except when they are mounting do-not-buy campaigns), preferring a demonic image of profit-obsessed, corner-cutting behemoths whose cloven hooves need permanently to be kept to the fire by bureaucrats and their radical environmental NGO comrades.


Mr. Vaughan is due to move in April to a new job as president and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Maurice Strong-created, Winnipeg-based, UN-backed sleeper cell for subversive anti-capitalist ideas. As IISD chairman Dan Gagnier noted, “It is an ideal match.”




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s