Jump to content

      



























Photo

Murray Rankin, MP for Victoria, the Bilcon mining corporation and NAFTA


  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 30 October 2015 - 09:04 AM

Murray Rankin's involvement with Delaware-based mining giant, Bilcon, should have its own thread considering the seriousness of Bilcon's case against Canada before a NAFTA tribunal. Canadian tax payers are on the hook for $300 million in damages owed to Bilcon for being denied mining rights in Nova Scotia in 2007.
 
Bilcon subsequently hired Victoria MP Murray Rankin through an Ontario-based legal firm to draft a report supporting Bilcon's claims against Canada. Murray Rankin signed off on the report while MP for Victoria.

 

In 2016 a decision regarding Bilcon's claim against Canada will be made. 
 
Resources:
 
http://www.internati...n.aspx?lang=eng
- http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/930
 
Posts from the 2015 Federal Election thread on VibrantVictoria

 

Conservatives were elected in January 2006. The White Pines Quarry proposal was rejected in October 2007. So it was a Conservative government that rejected Bilcon's proposal at the federal level.

The Nova Scotia government of the day was also Conservative.

Both these governments were minority governments at the time.

David Broadland Post link

 

 

Rankin wasn't defending anybody and he wasn't in “court.” He appeared as a paid expert witness on behalf of a mining company that was suing the Canadian government through the provisions of NAFTA. NAFTA is completely separate from the Canadian judicial system.

Rankin was, in effect, on the plaintiff's side in a civil suit. How did he get there? Rankin was asked by the mining company---Bilcon---to represent its interests in the suit. If Rankin had been someone who, say, was opposed to the way in which NAFTA Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals work against a country's sovereign interests, he wouldn't have taken the job. Instead, he didn't seem to have any problem with that; in fact his responses to our reporter suggest he may have been unaware of how the tribunals work.

It was Rankin's personal choice to help Bilcon. That's the issue. He hasn't provided a satisfying answer as to why he did something that contributed to a decision that is going to cost Canada hundreds of millions and, as the dissenting member of the tribunal, Professor Donald McRae, noted, has resulted in “A remarkable step backwards in environmental protection.” Instead, Rankin has portrayed his involvement as something he was legally compelled to do.

This is an important part of Rankin's recent record as an elected official. Focus decided it was worthy of his constituents' considersation before an election. If it had been Elizabeth May, we would have done that story, too.

David Broadland Post link

 

The dialogue on VV's FB page is much like that on other FB pages, like Rankin's and Robert's, for example. Kind of an echo chamber, same people opposing and defending. In general, both sides misrepresented the issue to some degree, but the misrepresentation that Rankin was “compelled to testify in court” seems organized. A NAFTA tribunal in not a court. Rankin was not compelled to testify just because he was “an expert witness.”

The role of an “expert witness” in such a proceeding has been misrepresented in many pro-Rankin comments on social media. Bilcon would have been looking for an opinion that would support its claim. Rankin would have understood that. Rankin provided an opinion, not “the truth” as so many FB commenters have put it. The dissenting tribunal judge, Professor Donald McRae, explicitly disagreed with the opinion Rankin provided. Neither were telling “the truth” and neither were lying. They were both giving their opinions. Rankin was never compelled to provide that opinion. He was paid to provide that opinion. So was McRae.

At the time Rankin agreed to work for Bilcon (through Appleton), Denise Savoie was about one year into her second term as MP. Did Rankin have any expectation that he would get an opportunity to run for Savoie's seat? The timing suggests not. The NDP likely were aware of his Bilcon connection when he was vetted as a candidate. That it wasn't a problem for the NDP says a lot about their current claim of concern about Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals in trade agreements.

Maria Manna lost her candidacy when she was held to account for something she wrote on FB. Same thing with Cheryl Thomas. Rankin's opinion, expressed in a different setting, will have actual consequences for Canadian taxpayers and the environment. Should Rankin be similarly held accountable for the opinion he expressed? 

David Broadland Post link


I'm not really clear on the Rankin controversy, and I'm by no means a supporter of his. If Canada is to have trade and industry then companies need to be treated fairly and the nationality of the company has nothing to do with it. Rankin need not approve of the particular environmental law or the particular plans of a company to testify that they were not treated fairly by the process. The guy was doing his job as a lawyer and I don't think that fact disqualifies him or makes him disloyal to Canada in any way shape or form.

 

Say the Joint Review Panel for Kinder Morgan's proposed TransMountain pipeline decides that the project can't proceed. Kinder Morgan could then sue Canada through the ISDS tribunal process set out in NAFTA. What would be the basis for such a suit? Kinder Morgan would hire lawyers to comb through the EA process and find the weakest points in the process. Kinder Morgan's lawyers would then approach expert witnesses with a shopping list of opinions and bags of money. Any particular expert witness they approached would then have to make a personal decision on whether to contribute their expertise to Kinder Morgan's suit or not. Let's say the Dogwood Initiative's Will Horter (who is a lawyer) decided to take the money.

If, after taking the money, Will Horter ran for political office and emphasized his past record as a protector of the environment and his opposition to tankers on the coast, it's likely his role in the NAFTA suit would be challenged during the election.

In the Bilcon/Rankin case, to understand the exact nature of the opinion Rankin provided, you need to read his 75-page expert opinion. You also need to read Donald McRae's dissenting opinion about Rankin's opinion. You can find these at www.italwa.com/cases/1588.

A second summary of the Rankin/Bilcon case was posted on thetyee.ca yesterday in an article by Andrew Nikiforuk. Interestingly, the article was labelled “Opinion” by The Tyee, even though the author, Andrew Nikiforuk, is a well-know journalist.

David Broadland Post link

 

kjkj


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users