Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Eviction and Banning from the Good Samaritan Extended Care at Millwoods---March 31, 2015---Day 41----seeking legislative follow up

We went to my sister who was very hot in the room. The walks were done.Then we left the Grey Nuns Hospital. A great wind came up and gusts of dust flew everywhere.
The burning hot morning and afternoon vanished in the tidal waves of a lost sunny day; clouds appeared like snapping dogs at the heels of the sun. We had rain.
When we got home, I had to serve a decrepit supper of sausages, mashed potatoes and limp green beans.
I spent a major part of today reviewing paper.  Legislation paper that is.
There are a whole pile of laws governing the evictions of folks and no one is obeying these laws. Usually this sort of stuff is hidden; folks are too scared to say boo to the government. I mean it's not an easy thing when you are a senior or a handicapped person to even understand why you are being dumped like a sack of potatoes at the local emergency of a hospital. It's something that would amaze and confuse ordinary citizens who are not subject to such poor behaviour on the part of landlords because the residential tenancies act forbids such sort of inappropriate actions on the part of landlords.
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/R17P1.pdf
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT
Statutes of Alberta, 2004
Chapter R-17.1
 Current as of February 20, 2015

Requirements respecting eviction 
34.1 A civil enforcement agency has authority to evict an 
occupant from residential premises 
 (a) only in accordance with an order for recovery of possession, 
and 
 (b) unless the court orders otherwise, only after the civil 
enforcement agency is satisfied that 
 (i) the order has been served on the tenant or overholding 
tenant or, where section 33 applies, the person living in 
the premises and the tenant, and 
 (ii) an affidavit of service has been filed in the Court of 
Queen’s Bench by the person who has the order for 
recovery of possession. 
2011 c14 s25 


But of course, the resident in the nursing home is not covered by this law and so can be dumped with any excuse being given. In our case, there was one excuse on dumping and another excuse later.
The nursing act has some guidance in its regulations but no one appears to follow these regulations.
Why?
I guess because they don't bother to follow them and because no family has asked them to follow these regulations.
What about the LTC provider?
I mean they are bound by their master service agreement presumably to follow the nursing act and its regulations; in any case they are supposed to follow these pieces of legislation.
The curious thing for me is that the LTC provider is supposed to follow the nursing act and its regulations but they don't or in our case, don't appear to have followed them. If the LTC provider  decides to transfer or in this case evict, they are supposed to allow the resident the right to ask for a reassessment and appeal.  But of course, if they don't want to go through this hassle of following the laws of the land, they dump the patient off at the emergency where AHS takes over to pressure families to "move forward" which seems to be ignore the regulations and do what is not in the best interests of the resident in this case.
It's all bewildering to me.

Why doesn't AHS follow the regulations that they are supposed to get the LTC providers to follow? Maybe they don't have any policies about these regulations for reassessment and appeal?
In the case of my handicapped sister, the Facility Living folks have been blank as newly made pieces of paper about the right for a reassessment by the district board and the appeal.
It's pretty interesting to me that this particular section of Continuing Care at the AHS place doesn't know about this relevant section of the regulations or if they do know about these regulations, simply don't tell the victims of the evictions/transfers. I mean, in my mind, they should be the ones sprouting off about the rights of the residents. But they seem to be mysterious about rights for some strange reason.  They are also mysterious about records. Why? Who knows? In my mind, inappropriate transfers should form a column of red in their financials but they don't even seem to know anything about the numbers of inappropriate transfers.  They don't even seem to keep any records apparently of the numbers of citizens who are dumped like my sister was or even of the numbers of transfers from LTC facilities to the AHS facilities. This seems a tad irregular in my mind. If we are taking on the costs of such transfers and evictions then they should be noted as financial expenses somewhere in the AHS financial records. Where are these inappropriate transfers tabulated? I am curious.
When I am curious I do an investigation.
These evictions would in my mind show up in the financial statements. It seems that it would show up as a growth column in the financials of AHS.
Maybe this is something the Auditor General could review--after I find out just how many inappropriate transfers occur in Alberta and how much this is all costing the taxpayers to subsidize the cherry picking habits of LTC providers.  I mean where is the accounting of all these extra costs to the health care system that no one speaks about?

I am also curious about the fact that some of the LTC facilities audited by AHS seem to overcharge for some of their residents.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/one-third-of-nursing-homes-over-coding-to-get-bigger-share-of-930m-pie

One-third of nursing homes "over-coding" to get bigger share of $930M pie

Published on: December 12, 2014
Last Updated: December 12, 2014 8:13 AM MDT
One-third of Alberta’s nursing homes are inflating their assessments of resident needs and qualifying for a larger but unwarranted slice of the $930-million pie for ailing seniors care, according to audits by the province’s health authority.
While an expert who has studied Alberta Health Services’ new funding model for long-term care believes the financial reviews show some operators are exploiting the system, authority officials say they have no plans to recover money from 28 problem facilities because they don’t believe the mistakes were deliberate.
“It’s not a matter of sites trying to boost up their funding in order to put more profit in their pants,” AHS program officer David O’Brien said.
“It just doesn’t make sense that this would be overt attempts…they’re just an honest error.”
With previous contracts, the authority had been paying facilities as little as $100 a day and as much as $425 a day to care for patients with similar needs.
Under a formula the authority implemented three years ago,  AHS now allocates funding to nursing homes based on an operator’s own assessment of how much care each resident needs.
But it wasn’t until last September that the authority set up a small team of experienced health-care workers to check the accuracy of the assessments submitted by facilities.
Of the province’s 170 nursing homes, 81 have been reviewed so far. At the 29 facilities where the team found problems, one was “under-coding” the care patients required while the other 28 were all  “over-coding” resident needs.
Jason Sutherland, a University of British Columbia researcher who helped produce a study for AHS last year on its new funding model , said the numbers are a clear sign that some nursing homes are “gaming the system” in a bid to get more dollars.
“This is not a random distribution and that suggests there is a deliberate attempt to over-code,” Sutherland said.
“It boggles my mind that any jurisdiction would introduce activity-based funding and not have a rigorous surveillance system and penalties in place to deter this behaviour.”
When Ontario introduced a similar model at its nursing homes five years ago, for example, Sutherland said the province saw the proportion of residents assessed with special rehabilitation needs quadruple in three short years.
“Everyone all of a sudden was getting into the highest rehabilitation category that had the highest weights which attracted the most money,” he said.
“They had such severe and systematic over-coding by a number of operators that they had to modify the classification system to reduce the financial incentive to over-code.”
Sutherland’s 2013 study for AHS suggests something similar is happening in Alberta.
He found there was a consistent spike in the average assessed need of residents at nursing homes around the province during the third quarter, the crucial 90-day-period that AHS uses to determine a facility’s funding for the coming year.
“When this happens in the United States, facility administrators have ended up going to jail, but in Canada we seem reluctant to even claw back the money,” Sutherland said.
“Honest operators are being shortchanged in Alberta and that could impact the quality of care their residents receive.”
Of the nursing homes found to have problems, 17 were operated by AHS, six were non-profits and six were privately owned. O’Brien refused to identify the facilities because he said the credibility and competency of their case managers would be called into question.
Prior to beginning the audit initiative last year, AHS had established a policy to recover money if over-coding was detected. But O’Brien said the authority has not done so because the “single-digit increases” in funding that resulted were “insignificant” and the money was all used to look after residents.
“We look at it from a high level perspective and our interests are in providing good quality care and in having operators who are financially viable and sustainable,” he said.
“As long as we’re satisfied…that the clients are well looked after, that their environments are safe and (the facilities ) spent the money we gave them on providing that care, then what exactly is the benefit of going and clawing back $20 here and $15 there?”
Officials with the Alberta Continuing Care Association, the lobby group that represents nursing home operators in the province, declined to comment on the audit findings.
mmcclure@calgaryherald.comtt
twitter.com/mattmcclure2

***********************************************
It is mind boggling to me that they never had a team to check the coding practices of the LTC providers.
Why the heck not?
And why aren't they asking for our money back when we have been overcharged?
What are we running here? The good ship Lollipop?
The auditor general of Alberta needs to audit the auditors at the AHS place for their work of these LTC facilities to make sure we aren't being over charged even more than these records admit to.
In my mind, the surveillance of the financials of the LTC facilities is pathetic and needs to be tightened up.
If the folks at the Good Samaritan Society were getting money for a respiratory therapist for five years and yet patients only saw a respiratory therapist for 3 out of 5 years, well then where did the funding go?
What about the respiratory supplies/equipment?
Who has audited the books to make sure that the money spent by these facilities is being used for their stated purposes?
The auditor general of Alberta needs to do a review of non-profit and for-profit organizations that receive public monies to see that our public dollars are being spent accurately.
I don't think that the AHS auditors can be relied on entirely since they aren't even asking for our money back when the organizations over-coded their clients and basically spent money they were not entitled to. In any other situation this would be considered fraud in my opinion and the police would be called in.
But when it is the public that is being ripped off everyone pooh poohs the matter of fraud. This is Alberta where the public is ripped off but no one is jailed. It is different in the USA where the free market is recognized for its abuses and laws are in place to deal with criminal activity of this sort:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/one-third-of-nursing-homes-over-coding-to-get-bigger-share-of-930m-pie

“When this happens in the United States, facility administrators have ended up going to jail, but in Canada we seem reluctant to even claw back the money,” Sutherland said.

 In my mind, a criminal intent doesn't need to be present if an act occurs to remove cash from the public purse in a mistake ---in my mind, if it was a mistake, then return the cash to the public purse. When citizens make mistakes with reference to their taxes, I don't believe that Revenue Canada does what AHS does and forgives us for mistakes. We pay up. And with interest.


They won't even release the information on the delinquent facilities because I guess it might make the administrators appear to be a tad at fault.

I think they should release the information on the overcoding facilities. Maybe they would be more careful with the financials when they have public scrutiny rather than the more forgiving AHS scrutiny which appears to be that the public can be screwed but lets not make the facilities that over-code look bad to that same public.  Heck they do look bad anyway and they still need to return the cash that they were not entitled to.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/one-third-of-nursing-homes-over-coding-to-get-bigger-share-of-930m-pie


Of the nursing homes found to have problems, 17 were operated by AHS, six were non-profits and six were privately owned. O’Brien refused to identify the facilities because he said the credibility and competency of their case managers would be called into question.

I wonder if the auditor general of Alberta audits the auditors at AHS?
This is yet another area that I am interested in.
Is AHS an entity that is independent of any sort of citizen investigation?
What is the structure of AHS?
Where is the book of policies that are followed by AHS?
Is this policy book a public document and if not, why not?
I mean we pay for the entire group of folks working at AHS and yet we get hardly any sort of information about the AHS, what it is in terms of its people and departments; we can't even find a phone list of the people who work there.
Why is it we can get a phone list for all government departments and employees but we cannot get the same sort of list for AHS employees?
Why the secrecy and the failure to provide phone numbers and e-mail addresses?
All these questions and no answers.
Most of all the problem of my baby sister.
The problem of my handicapped sister's eviction from the Good Samaritan Extended Care at Millwoods and the failures of AHS to provide the reassessment and appeal process to us has given rise to other interesting questions that I want answered.
The AHS group is not a private industry.
It is a public entity.
And it is time for there to be transparency and accountability to the public they supposedly serve.


I am seeking legislative follow up in the form of the reassessment and appeal process.
It may be that we are the only family in Alberta to have ever asked for the laws of the land to be followed.
If so we will set the precedent for cases of evictions/ banning.

Then we will work on getting the legislative gaps filled.
There should never be such disrespectful evictions of vulnerable handicapped residents from the LTC provider.
If they occur, the contracts --the master service agreements should specify consequences ---right up to the terminations of such contracts.
Why would the public want to do business with providers who don't care enough for their residents that they chuck them out when they want to for no legitimate reason and then ban their families so as to censor further commentary from them?
Why would the public tolerate the expenses of acute care beds used to house these improperly treated residents while their own rooms lie empty?
Why isn't the resident who is appealing her eviction/banning/ transfer housed in her own room until such reassessment and appeal is completed?
Why is the public paying for the failures of the LTC organization with the full cooperation of AHS?
Isn't there any other way in a civil society for such problems to be dealt with prior to these sorts of punitive acts?
Or is this the way the government of Alberta wants to treat families?
In my mind the government of Alberta is not being family friendly or responsive to the needs of vulnerable handicapped citizens.
When will the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta stand up for families as the NDP lead by Rachel Notley is doing?
When will Mr. Mandel do his job as my MLA and help our family?

Maybe we have to vote anything but Conservative to get the help for our families that the NDP are only too willing to provide but that the Conservatives have failed to provide.



OPINION LETTERS


Letter to the editor: Rachel Notley budget tour to hit Fort McMurray

Rachel Notley
Saturday, February 7, 2015 9:27:04 MST AM
NDP leader Rachel Notley addresses supporters during the NDP's provincial council at the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel in Edmonton, Alta., on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015. Codie McLachlan/Edmonton Sun/QMI Agency
NDP leader Rachel Notley addresses supporters during the NDP's provincial council at the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel in Edmonton, Alta., on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015. Codie McLachlan/Edmonton Sun/QMI Agency
  • Bookmark and Share
Change text size for the story


As Alberta’s economy becomes more volatile due to falling oil prices, and as the PC government prepares to present a slash-and-burn budget before a snap election, my caucus and I are travelling across this great province to listen to the needs and priorities of all Albertans.
We have already visited Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary and Red Deer and will soon visit Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray. We are talking about how we can strengthen communities and services, and ensure people from all areas of the province, and from all walks of life, have their voices heard. We’ll wrap up our tour in Edmonton in March before the budget is released to the public.
We know that the current economic climate is a big concern for all Albertans, and will have a great impact on everyone’s day-to-day lives. That’s why it’s crucial for Alberta’s NDP to listen to community leaders, economic development groups, not-for-profits, Indigenous organizations and workers to hear what their priorities are for the upcoming budget.
For far too long, this PC government has been reckless and taken high oil prices for granted, and failed to do any long-term planning for when oil prices would inevitably drop. All of us – not just Tory insiders – should benefit from the resources of Alberta. The government has neglected to deliver services people count on, like hospitals, schools and seniors care. Instead, they squandered our resource wealth in the good times and lost opportunities to make life better for today’s Alberta.
We know that the economic downturn requires tough choices. But it’s time that everyone faced the brunt of these hard times, not just working and middle-class families. Just because times are bad doesn’t mean the PCs should be making Albertans pay the price. Fairness comes first.
Together, we can set the right direction for the province – a direction that protects our future, invests in our kids and seniors, and strengthens our families and communities.
I’m excited for this opportunity to travel the province and speak with Albertans about their priorities for the future of this province.
If you can’t make it to our tour stops, we still want to hear your concerns. Email ndcommunications@assembly.ab.ca or join in the conversation on Facebook.com/AlbertaNDP
Rachel Notley
Leader, Alberta’s NDP


http://www.ndpopposition.ab.ca/mlas/rachel-notley

About Rachel

Rachel Notley, Leader of Alberta's NDP Opposition, MLA Edmonton-Strathcona
Rachel Notley, Leader of Alberta's NDP Opposition, MLA Edmonton-Strathcona
Rachel Notley was elected as the leader of the Alberta New Democrats on October 18, 2014. Since 2008, Rachel has served as the MLA for Edmonton-Strathcona, and is known as a strong, effective voice in the Legislature. She was re-elected in 2012, with the highest share of the vote of any MLA in the province.

Raised in Fairview Alberta, Rachel Notley is the oldest child of Grant and Sandra Notley. Her father, Grant, led the Alberta New Democrats from 1968 to 1984. Rachel has said that her father’s tireless effort to build the party taught her the importance of hard work, and she shares his vision of building a better, fairer province for all Albertans.

Rachel holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Alberta, and a law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School. Before entering politics, Rachel worked for a variety of labour unions in Alberta and British Columbia and served as a ministerial advisor to British Columbia’s Attorney General in the 1990s.

Rachel Notley has distinguished herself as a powerful voice for fairness, for better public health care and education for Alberta families, and for protecting vulnerable Albertans.

She currently lives in Edmonton’s Old Strathcona neighbourhood with her husband and two teenage children.
- See more at: http://www.ndpopposition.ab.ca/mlas/rachel-notley#sthash.jzKbUxPS.dpuf

http://albertandp.ca/rachelnotley/wherewestand

Making Alberta's Prosperity Work for Everyone

Because Alberta Belongs to You. The Alberta NDP Plan to make Alberta's Prosperity Work for Everyone
Alberta’s NDP is the only modern alternative, and the only party capable of defeating the PCs.
Under Rachel Notley, the Alberta NDP will stand up for
  • Better public health care
  • Equality for all students in our public schools
  • Affordability for all Alberta families
  • Investment in the infrastructure needed to promote a vibrant Alberta
  • End child poverty and stop homelessness in Alberta
  • A fresh approach to government in Alberta
http://alberta.cupe.ca/files/2014/10/The_United_Leader-January-2012.pdf

1. Before the last election, the
Conservatives promised that if
elected they would build 800 new
long term care spaces.
 They have built zero.
 Instead, they have looked to the 
private sector to create ‘assisted 
living’ spaces. Assisted living is 
a much lower level of care for a 
much higher price to the patient 
and their family. So inadequate 
is the service that most doctors 
won’t release seniors from 
hospitals unless there is a proper 
long term care space for them 
to go to. This means the hospital 
beds are used up (at great 
expense to the taxpayer) and wait 
times increase across the system.
 Brian Mason and the Alberta NDP
have been relentless advocates
of building more long term care
beds in the province. These beds
provide the care seniors need, at
a cost their families can afford,
while reducing wait times in
hospitals and emergency rooms.
The Conservatives have ignored
those calls and kept building beds
no one wants or can afford. ✿

---An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate) Preamble Whereas British Columbia’s North Coast comprises a unique and diverse ocean ecosystem whose marine resources sustain regional economies in British Columbia, and hold crucial cultural and historic importance for the communities and First Nations who call the North Coast home; Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the duty of the Crown to obtain prior consent from First Nations affected by resource development projects on their territories; Whereas Canada’s current resource development framework disempowers local and region-al voices in decision-making processes and unfairly concentrates power away from those who would be affected; And whereas Canada holds some of the largest energy reserves in the world yet still imports half of its energy from international sources and is foregoing enormous social and economic benefits under the current raw export regime; Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 2001, c. 26-------Prohibition 189.2 (1) It is prohibited to transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. Clarification (2) The areas of the sea referred to in subsection (1) are those areas included within Zone 3 as described in the Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 1, 2 and 3) Order made under the Oceans Act. For greater certainty (3) For greater certainty, the prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the transportation of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel oil or fuel oil that is intended for use in coastal and island communities in Canada. 2. Subsection 191(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after that paragraph: (c.1) section 189.2 (prohibition against operation of oil tanker in specified areas); and R.S., c. N-7-----------We elect our politicians to represent us, not Big Oil -- and now we have a real chance to finally make them stand for people over pipelines. Harper’s latest project would ram an 1,177 km oil pipeline from Alberta straight through the heart of BC’s Great Bear Rainforest, to be sent overseas for refining. But a new bill in Parliament would ban the dangerous mega-tankers needed to do it, sinking this reckless plan before it sets sail -- and we know exactly how to get it passed.

An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate)

Sponsor

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Second reading (House), as of March 30, 2015
Subscribe to a feed of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-628.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to prohibit the transportation of oil in oil tankers in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. It also amends the National Energy Board Act to require the National Energy Board to take into account certain specified factors before making a recommendation to the Minister in respect of the issuance of a pipeline certificate.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.






Section Home
Print format
Next Page
Options
C-628
Second Session, Forty-first Parliament,
62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-628

An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate)


FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014










Section Home
Table of ContentsPrint format
C-628
Second Session, Forty-first Parliament,
62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
BILL C-628
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate)


FIRST READING, SEPTEMBER 23, 2014


Mr. Cullen

412220

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to prohibit the transportation of oil in oil tankers in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. It also amends the National Energy Board Act to require the National Energy Board to take into account certain specified factors before making a recommendation to the Minister in respect of the issuance of a pipeline certificate.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca

2nd Session, 41st Parliament,
62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014
house of commons of canada
BILL C-628
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the National Energy Board Act (oil transportation and pipeline certificate)
Preamble
Whereas British Columbia’s North Coast comprises a unique and diverse ocean ecosystem whose marine resources sustain regional economies in British Columbia, and hold crucial cultural and historic importance for the communities and First Nations who call the North Coast home;
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the duty of the Crown to obtain prior consent from First Nations affected by resource development projects on their territories;
Whereas Canada’s current resource development framework disempowers local and region-al voices in decision-making processes and unfairly concentrates power away from those who would be affected;
And whereas Canada holds some of the largest energy reserves in the world yet still imports half of its energy from international sources and is foregoing enormous social and economic benefits under the current raw export regime;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

2001, c. 26
CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 2001
1. The Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is amended by adding the following after section 189:

Prohibition
Definitions
189.1 The following definitions apply in section 189.2.
“in bulk”
« en vrac »
“in bulk” means in a hold or tank that is part of the structure of a vessel, without any intermediate form of containment.
“oil”
« pétrole »
“oil” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.
“oil tanker”
« pétrolier »
“oil tanker” means a vessel that is constructed or adapted primarily to transport oil in bulk.
Prohibition
189.2 (1) It is prohibited to transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.
Clarification
(2) The areas of the sea referred to in subsection (1) are those areas included within Zone 3 as described in the Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 1, 2 and 3) Order made under the Oceans Act.
For greater certainty
(3) For greater certainty, the prohibition in subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the transportation of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel oil or fuel oil that is intended for use in coastal and island communities in Canada.
2. Subsection 191(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after that paragraph:
(c.1) section 189.2 (prohibition against operation of oil tanker in specified areas); and

R.S., c. N-7
NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
3. (1) The portion of subsection 52(2) of the National Energy Board Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Factors to consider
(2) In making its recommendation, the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be directly related to the pipeline and to be relevant, as well as to
(2) Subsection 52(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after that paragraph:
(d.1) the extent to which the pipeline is expected to have an impact on employment in upgraders, refineries and petrochemical complexes within Canada; and
(3) Section 52 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Consultations required
(2.1) Before submitting a report under subsection (1), the Board shall ensure that consultations have taken place between the Government of Canada and all provincial, territorial, municipal and First Nations governments whose lands or waters will be affected by the pipeline and take into account the position of those governments on the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline. The report shall include a summary of those positions and specify how the Board took each position into account in deciding whether or not to recommend the issuance of a certificate in respect of the pipeline.
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons


Tell our MPs: protect the coast!
WRITE AND SEND A MESSAGE

James Rajotte 
 Canada's Parliament,

Dear Mr. Rajotte, 
Please ban tanker traffic on the BC coast.
The probability of a tanker spill is certain.
No industry can operate without a certain number of errors.
When these errors result in an oil spill, there are consequences to the ocean that will endure and that may never be reversed.
It is imperative that we look at alternatives for the transport of oil from Alberta that won't result in permanent damage to the BC coast.
Please vote yes on Bill 628 -- An Act to Defend the Pacific Northwest.

I am asking you to protect the coast of BC from future assured catastrophic oil spills.
The land, air and water are the legacies we leave to our children.
The short term gains of energy development without careful consideration of the environmental costs will be both a current and future cost to all citizens of Canada.
Who will clean up the guaranteed spills?
Can these spills be cleaned up?
What happens to the ecosystem and its inhabitants?
Are the returns of such development significant--so that when the costs of destruction of the environment is factored in --there is a net profit to our citizens rather than just to the oil and gas industry.
And just who do you represent Mr. Rajotte?
Do you represent citizens or big oil and gas?
Sincerely,
Julie Ali


--
Julie Ali
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada   
___ 

Note: Julie Ali sent you this message as part of an Avaaz campaign to protect the coast at 


SEND
Avaaz will protect your privacy and keep you posted about this and similar campaigns.

On Wednesday, our MPs will vote on a bill that would ban oil tanker traffic on BC’s coast. Just one spill could be catastrophic -- but we can ask our MPs to put the people first.

Use the form on the right to send our MPs a message: some will be read out on the Parliament floor by MP Nathan Cullen during debate this week. 

You can use these talking points to help shape your note, but remember: the more personal your note, the better. You might even tell our MPs about a time you spent on the coast that was really special or memorable.
Vote yes on Bill 628 -- An Act to Defend the Pacific Northwest
Accidents happen! Giant oil spills like the Exxon Valdez or Deep Water Horizon were enormously destructive. You can make sure this doesn’t happen in BC by supporting this legislation.
A safe and healthy BC coast is a crucial part of our provincial identity. It contributes to tourism, to our fisheries, and is a place we’ve enjoyed exploring. We need you to vote yes to protect it.


From: "Danny Auron - Avaaz" <avaaz@avaaz.org>
To: "julie ali" <julie.ali@
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:10:48 AM
Subject: Two days to protect the BC coast


Harper’s government is tearing up Canada to serve the interests of Big Oil. But a new bill gives us a chance to stop the slow destruction of Canada's environment. Click now to tell our MPs to vote for the people they serve and choose people over pipelines:


SIGN THE PETITION


On Wednesday, the bill is up for a vote and our petition and messages will be read on the Parliament floor -- click to add your name!

Dear friends,

Our pipeline-loving government is tearing up the country to pump dirty tar from the heart of Alberta all around the world. We elect our politicians to represent us, not Big Oil -- and now we have a real chance to finally make them stand for people over pipelines.

Harper’s latest project would ram an 1,177 km oil pipeline from Alberta straight through the heart of BC’s Great Bear Rainforest, to be sent overseas for refining. But a new bill in Parliament would ban the dangerous mega-tankers needed to do it, sinking this reckless plan before it sets sail -- and we know exactly how to get it passed.
When 50,000 people sign on, we’ll run a massive ad campaign in western ridings that face the greatest risk -- and that might hold the key to the next Canadian election. The message to these MPs will be clear: people over pipelines. Vote for the people you serve, or you will lose your job.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/people_before_pipelines_locrb/?bbwCleb&v=56200

13 Conservative votes are needed to pass the bill and stop Harper’s slow destruction of Canada’s environment. And with the people of BC and Alberta standing up against pipeline politics, insiders say that this issue might turn the next election, leaving western Tory MPs between a rock and a hard place -- and giving us the chance to have them vote for the bill or explain why they’re putting the party and the oil barons ahead of the people that elected them.

Enbridge insists that their Northern Gateway pipeline will be safe, but their pipes have spilled over 800 times in the last decade alone. And with Harper’s approval, the BC coast is about to see 220 monstrous tankers weave their way through a minefield of islands and inlets every year. Pipelines leak and tankers crash and when they do, they catastrophically and irreversibly destroy the environment -- and put us all at risk.

Click now to take back our voice, and tell our politicians it’s time they represent us, not mega-rich foreign oil interests: it’s people over pipelines:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/people_before_pipelines_locrb/?bbwCleb&v=56200

This won’t be easy -- Harper stopped listening to Canadians a long time ago. But with their jobs on the line, these MPs could change course and rescue their people, our country, and our planet from ecological destruction. Our movement has never been stronger - let’s take action.

With hope,

Danny, Emma, Ari, Ricken, Melanie and the whole Avaaz team

SOURCES

NDP Bill Would Ban Tankers off BC's North Coast (The Tyee)
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/09/24/NDP-Bill-North-Coast-Tankers/

5 things to know about today’s Northern Gateway oil pipeline decision (Toronto Star)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/17/5_things_to_know_about_todays_northern_gateway_oil_pipeline_decision.html

Enbridge staff ignored warnings in Kalamazoo River spill (CBC)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/enbridge-staff-ignored-warnings-in-kalamazoo-river-spill-1.1129398


Support the Avaaz Community!
We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way.

DONATE NOW



Avaaz.org is a 41-million-person global campaign network
 that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.



To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US).