How to get barred from visiting the Canadian Senate

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hint: do not wear an "I Love Canadian Oil & Gas" t-shirt.  Because apparently that is "hate speech".

Posted in full below for those who do not have LinkedIn.

 

Open Letter - How to get barred from visiting the Senate

Dear Prime Minister, Senators and Honourable MPs,

I am writing to you today regarding a recent experience that I had in our nation’s capital. My wife and I travelled out east to drop our youngest child off at university for his first year of engineering. Seeing as this was a fairly long trip, we decided that we would extend our trip by a few days so as to take in the sights and sounds of Ottawa. Over the following few days we made plans to go on a bike tour of the city, visit the science museum and national gallery, and tour the core buildings of our nation’s capital (House of Commons, Senate and the Supreme Court).

In all, the experience was a good one, with one very notable exception. When my wife and I went to visit the Senate, we were taken aside by security and told that the shirt I was wearing needed to be removed as it may offend some people. What was the offending shirt?

 

 

Nowhere does the shirt say anything negative, defamatory or insulting to others. Far from it - it advocates a responsible and ethical approach to resource development. Last I checked, freedom of expression is protected under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, there were other people on the tour who had graphics of things like a skull with a cross on the forehead, an anti-discrimination shirt (ironic) and one with a peace symbol on it.

The last time I checked there was nothing illegal about the Canadian energy sector, and yet I was made to feel as though I should be embarrassed for what I was wearing. The solution? I was told I could either leave or I could turn my shirt inside out and take part in the tour - I chose the latter option. The next stop on our tour was the House of Commons, where I was welcomed and there were absolutely no concerns expressed regarding my shirt. I went out of my way to talk with various members of security and not one of them raised an eyebrow at my shirt.

I would like an answer as to why I was treated in such a manner at the Senate and if it is the policy of the Government of Canada to shame members of the Canadian energy industry. I am proud of the industry I work for and I know firsthand that we are leading the way globally in terms of improving environmental performance as well as other aspects related to ESG (environment, social and governance) standards.

I look forward to your response.

Kindest regards,

William Lacey

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

This is fascinating stuff.  I would make a few oblique comments:

The building in the background of the photo is actually the inner chamber of the House of Commons, not the Canadian Senate chamber where the visitor was expelled. As the article mentioned, the shirt passed muster in the House.  Non-Canadians may observe that in Canada the Members of the Canadian Senate are not elected; rather, they received appointments.  I am a bit hazy on the procedure but think it is an appointment made by the Prime Minister.  The Senate is (in theory) a pensive, deliberative body;  in practice I would suggest it is a good place for taking an afternoon nap.

It also looks like the matter has stirred up some interest.  I reproduce here some of the Comment Posts made by responding readers at Linked-In, where the full Letter was published:

The "National Post" is a national newspaper published in Toronto.  It tends to be thorough in its writing.  I have been consulted by its staff for technical information regarding aspects of Canadian oil and gas. 

Another written comment:

You can see the elitist mentality in Ottawa that so enrages the public from Alberta.  

And, not to be outdone, here  is a real classic gem:   (probably what I would have done, in the circumstances that pertain)

And P.S.  I can flatly guarantee my wife would have, also!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hint: do not wear an "I Love Canadian Oil & Gas" t-shirt.  Because apparently that is "hate speech".

 

 

Where exactly was it called "hate speech?"

"Offends others" is much different. Guy was attempting to make a political statement, and still is...

Fairly sure advertising and/or direct campaigning is prohibited inside the house and probably especially the senate. 

PS

I've been scolded at golf courses for dress code violations while wearing much nicer stuff than that!  I have also dressed up for court when I had no vested interest in the outcome - it's called respect for places of law.  #NotDisneyland

Edited September 6, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

You can see the elitist mentality in Ottawa that so enrages the public from Alberta.  

 

Any progressive idea enrages most of those dolts. They have been indoctrinated to believe all of Canada runs off AB oil and gas money. #AlternativeFacts

Edited September 6, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Where exactly was it called "hate speech?"

"Offends others" is much different. Guy was attempting to make a political statement, and still is...

It wasn't called "hate speech" in the article.  That was simply my observation.

Seems to me that anti - oil & gas people are pretty much free to say anything negative they want about oil & gas.

Are pro - oil & gas people allowed to say positive things about oil & gas?  Not so much.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

It wasn't called "hate speech" in the article.  That was simply my observation.

 

Ok, but hate speech is an actual crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Any progressive idea enrages most of those dolts. They have been indoctrinated to believe all of Canada runs off AB oil and gas money. #AlternativeFacts

Well, Let's see: the country runs off Alberta Oil & Gas,  BC and NB lumber,  AB, SK and MN grains, nothing much from Ontario as that place has been run into the ground and the Americans have all fled,  QC hydropower, NS lobster being sold to China, and Newfie oil (again)   Have I missed anything?   

OK, so also keep in mind that the ONLY contributor to Equalization Payments is Alberta.  The others are sunk into poverty and oblivion.  So there you go. 

PS:  our T-shirt man in the Senate turns out to be the "Chief financial officer" of Steelhead Petroleum, in Alberta.  Now, in my experience, "chief financial officers" are not exactly hotheads who hand themselves by long ropes over the river channels, to prevent drill rigs from being towed out to sea.  Those guys are something else.  Those oil-finance guys are rather mild, they sit in some office and crunch numbers on a calculator.  Not exactly the Sylvester Stallone image, now is it? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Ok, but hate speech is an actual crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Here's the problem though.  From the link:

"The various laws which refer to "hatred" do not define it."

 

Also, per CNN:

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, Let's see: the country runs off Alberta Oil & Gas,  BC and NB lumber,  AB, SK and MN grains, nothing much from Ontario as that place has been run into the ground and the Americans have all fled,  QC hydropower, NS lobster being sold to China, and Newfie oil (again)   Have I missed anything?   

OK, so also keep in mind that the ONLY contributor to Equalization Payments is Alberta.  The others are sunk into poverty and oblivion.  So there you go. 

PS:  our T-shirt man in the Senate turns out to be the "Chief financial officer" of Steelhead Petroleum, in Alberta.  Now, in my experience, "chief financial officers" are not exactly hotheads who hand themselves by long ropes over the river channels, to prevent drill rigs from being towed out to sea.  Those guys are something else.  Those oil-finance guys are rather mild, they sit in some office and crunch numbers on a calculator.  Not exactly the Sylvester Stallone image, now is it? 

O&G plus other mining is less than 10% of GDP.

AB is not the only contributor to transfer payments - but does pay a lot.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

O&G plus other mining is less than 10% of GDP.

But let's remember that half of GDP is the buying and selling of financial instruments.  Kinda a loony way to go measure "output," now isn't it?

6 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

AB is not the only contributor to transfer payments - but does pay a lot.

OK, I'll bite:  who else is a donor Province (net contributions)? 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

But let's remember that half of GDP is the buying and selling of financial instruments.  Kinda a loony way to go measure "output," now isn't it?

OK, I'll bite:  who else is a donor Province (net contributions)? 

False accounting is what the world runs on - especially the US.

It varies but generally BC, AB, SK, and sometimes ON are considered "have provinces" QC always takes and that is what pisses people off (damn french); they see it as a vote buy (which it is). 

Bet the silicon valley dems just love their tax money being sent to buy trump votes from impacted farmers.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

30 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

 

It varies but generally BC, AB, SK, and sometimes ON are considered "have provinces" QC always takes and that is what pisses people off (damn french); they see it as a vote buy (which it is). 

 

Ontario is definitely deep into Recipient territory, the days of being a Donor are long gone.  Ditto for Manitoba. I think in the last go-around of collections and distributions the only Province that made a net contribution was Alberta. And now it looks like the whole scheme will fall on its own weight as Alberta is facing oil shut-ins and low prices, plus that pesky WCS-WTI spread problem.  Oh, well.  Nice while it lasted.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

14 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Ontario is definitely deep into Recipient territory, the days of being a Donor are long gone.  Ditto for Manitoba. I think in the last go-around of collections and distributions the only Province that made a net contribution was Alberta. And now it looks like the whole scheme will fall on its own weight as Alberta is facing oil shut-ins and low prices, plus that pesky WCS-WTI spread problem.  Oh, well.  Nice while it lasted.

Ontario might grow enough pot...

Construction of the trans mountain expansion is finally starting. 

Alberta is fairly broke thanks to years of conservative "leadership" who didn't think saving any money during the booms was a good idea. Nah let's just mail out Ralph Bucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_Bonus 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Ontario might grow enough pot...

Construction of the trans mountain expansion is finally starting. 

Alberta is fairly broke thanks to years of conservative "leadership" who didn't think saving any money during the booms was a good idea. Nah let's just mail out Ralph Bucks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_Bonus 

Every time Alberta saved money, Ontario stole it. 

Notley gets all the well deserved blame for the fustercluck she created there. I'm sure you voted for her twice

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Update for anyone interested; 11 minute follow-up interview with local radio:

Ottawa Now - Alberta man told to remove his pro-oil and gas shirt during Senate tour

• Description

William Lacey says he just wanted to see the centre of Canada’s political power, not make a political statement, but the CFO of a Calgary energy company suddenly found himself in a secure room of the Upper Chamber in the nation’s capital just the same when an overzealous security guard decided his shirt might contain a message other visitors might find offensive. Lacey joins Kristy on today's Ottawa Now. 

[Ian Austin + 131]

On 9/5/2019 at 11:40 PM, Jan van Eck said:

But let's remember that half of GDP is the buying and selling of financial instruments.  Kinda a loony way to go measure "output," now isn't it?

OK, I'll bite:  who else is a donor Province (net contributions)? 

Over the last couple of years: Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Basically, the main oil/gas producing provinces

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ian Austin said:

Over the last couple of years: Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Basically, the main oil/gas producing provinces

Sure... but those same provinces have strong agriculture/fisheries and some tourism.

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Ian Austin + 131]

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Sure... but those same provinces have strong agriculture/fisheries and some tourism.

 

Yes - true. However, I grew up in NL and they were always a taker, before the oil/gas industry took off

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ian Austin

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, Ian Austin said:

Yes - true. However, I grew up in NL and they were always a taker, before the oil/gas industry took off

If NF got a decent price for the wholesale electricity from Churchill Falls, it would be a massive economic powerhouse.  Instead, Joey Smallwood got conned into this deal where NF had to sell the power to Quebec in order to transit the power across Quebec soil, and Hydro-Quebec then re-sold it to the Americans.  I think NF was paid 0.1 cents/KWH for the power, resold it all at 5 cents.  In effect, NF financed the total economic expansion of Quebec, plus paid for the Quebec health system, every dime.  Left the Newfies with crumbs. 

[Ian Austin + 131]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

If NF got a decent price for the wholesale electricity from Churchill Falls, it would be a massive economic powerhouse.  Instead, Joey Smallwood got conned into this deal where NF had to sell the power to Quebec in order to transit the power across Quebec soil, and Hydro-Quebec then re-sold it to the Americans.  I think NF was paid 0.1 cents/KWH for the power, resold it all at 5 cents.  In effect, NF financed the total economic expansion of Quebec, plus paid for the Quebec health system, every dime.  Left the Newfies with crumbs. 

All correct. I think he though he was doing he right thing at the time. History of course proved otherwise 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ian Austin

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

47 minutes ago, Ian Austin said:

All correct. I think he though he was doing he right thing at the time. History of course proved otherwise 

Let's face it, any man saddled with "small wood" as their sobriquet is facing an uphill struggle for life. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's face it, any man saddled with "small wood" as their sobriquet is facing an uphill struggle for life. 

😂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE