Energy producers – May 14

Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

A Political Storm Over Canadian Energy Security
Stoneleigh, The Oil Drum: Canada
Gordon Laxer, Professor of political economy at the University of Alberta and Director of the Parklands Institute, created a political storm with his testimony before the International Trade Committee on Thursday. He was conducting a presentation on the energy and climate change implications of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an agreement on greater integration between Canada, the US and Mexico. Professor Laxer pointed out that the deal, which refers to North American “energy security” as a priority, commits Canada to maintaining energy exports to the US, in the absence of a national plan or strategic reserve to protect its own security of supply.

According to the Ottawa Citizen,

At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.

Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit’s ruling.

Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, “This meeting is adjourned,” and stormed out, followed by three of the panel’s four Conservative members.

The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.

Benoit’s actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, parliamentary procedure experts still hadn’t figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment.

(14 May 2007) The original has the text of the presentation by Dr. Laxer that got the rise out of the Tories. -BA

Tories storm out of meeting on sharing energy with U.S
Kelly Patterson, CanWest News Service
Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs on Thursday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S.

The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left “to freeze in the dark” if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America.

He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute about concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules across the continent. The deal, which calls North American “energy security” a priority, commits Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself – unlike most industrialized nations – has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.

At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.

Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit’s ruling.

Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, “This meeting is adjourned,” and stormed out, followed by three of the panel’s four Conservative members.

The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.
(11 May 2007)

Iraqis resist U.S. pressure to enact oil law
Tina Susman, LA Times
Foreign investment and Shiite control are the primary concerns. A White House deadline for passage is in doubt.
—-
BAGHDAD – It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq’s civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington’s clock.

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq’s oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates.
(13 May 2007)
Also at Common Dreams