All posts by Common Sense Canadian

Latest Harper Omnibus bill guts environmental laws for coal, LNG ports

Latest Harper Omnibus bill guts regulations for coal, LNG ports

Share
Neptune coal terminal (Image: Dan Pierce/Wilderness Committee)
Neptune coal terminal (Image: Dan Pierce/Wilderness Committee)

By Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston – republished with permission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

On October 23, 2014, the federal government introduced Bill C-43A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures (also called the “Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2”). Buried in Division 16 of the 475 page omnibus bill are proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act that, if adopted, would pose a serious threat to legal protection from environmental threats and public oversight of activities that occur in ports.

The proposed amendments raise a number of concerns for British Columbians, especially as they relate to controversial shipping industries like coal and LNG – indeed one of the most troubling amendments could be viewed as a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed by Voters Taking Action on Climate Change against the environmental assessment of the controversial Fraser Surrey Coal Docks.  For detailed information, see our legal backgrounder Bill C-43: A threat to environmental safety and democracy, but two of the most concerning changes are:

  • Allowing the federal Cabinet to exempt port lands from key requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Species At Risk Act that regulate “federal lands” by turning those lands over to port authorities.
  • Giving Cabinet extensive powers to write new laws for ports, and to delegate law-making powers for ports to any person, without many checks and balances.

Exempting “federal lands” from federal environmental laws

Some federal environmental statutes create special environmental requirements for activities taking place on “federal lands.”  Examples include:

  • Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012– the requirement to consider the environmental impacts of projects – even where they would not otherwise require an environmental assessment;
  • Species At Risk Act– The requirement to protect land-based endangered and threatened species and their habitat on federal lands.

Bill C-43 gives the federal government the ability to get around these legal protections by converting federal lands into port lands.  Specifically, Cabinet would gain the ability to sell its lands in a port to the port authority.  Once it does so, even though the port authority is supposed to act as an agent of the federal government, those lands will no longer be considered “federal lands.”

And, presto, as if by magic those nasty environmental protections disappear.

A controversial coal port proposed for Surrey, BC gives a tangible example of what this might mean.  As we write in the backgrounder:

[quote]…Fraser Surrey Docks LP’s proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility in Surrey, BC was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority because the project occurs on federal lands under Port Authority supervision. The Port Authority’s approval of the facility has been challenged in court by a group of citizen and non-profit applicants represented by Ecojustice and Beverly Hobby (with funding from West Coast) for failing to follow the requirements of CEAA 2012. If the Bill C-43 changes to the Canada Marine Act come into effect and the federal government were to sell the property on which it is located to the Port Authority, it would be possible for controversial projects like this one to bypass reviews under CEAA 2012 altogether.[/quote]

Trust us, we’re law-makers

The second thing that Bill C-43 does is to turn over exceptionally wide law-making powers to Cabinet, including giving it the ability to turn broad powers over to port authorities, provinces or even industry.  While Cabinet often has the power to make regulations under a statute, these powers are exceptionally broad, and include powers to:

  • hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial (court) control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself;
  • powers to incorporate industry or other documents in the regulations without necessarily making those documents publicly available;
  • create rules for the retention or destruction of documents.

The Bill provides few explicit constraints over how these powers could be used, and the government hasn’t given any real indication as to its plans, but:

Powers that can be delegated include responsibility for making laws and policies regarding specified industrial activities in ports, administering activities under those instruments, and hearing disputes that occur regarding port activities. For example, Cabinet could in principle allow an industry association to write the rules regarding the assessment and permitting processes for LNG facilities and coal storage, and the shipping of both. It could then incorporate those rules into federal law without public notice or opportunity to comment.

The Bill even purports to allow Cabinet to take oversight of the new rules away from the courts by creating a tribunal to hear any disputes regarding those activities in ports, including challenges by the public. It could appoint industry representatives as the tribunal’s members and authorize port authorities to write the rules governing port activities and for hearing disputes (including who would have standing to bring a challenge).

Canadians understand the value of checks and balances and transparency in laws.  These amendments do away with both.

Secret amendments

What are these amendments doing in a budget bill?  This is the latest of a series of amendments to environmental laws that have been hidden in voluminous budget bills and debated by the House Finance Committee (instead of environmental committee).  This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, and now is the time to say no.

Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston are staff counsel at the West Coast Environmental Law Association. They are calling on concerned citizens to write to Finance Minister Joe Oliver about this proposed omnibus budget bill.

Share

Alberta Premier Prentice goes East to rescue TransCanada pipeline

Share
Jim Prentice meeting with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard
Jim Prentice meeting with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard (Twitter)

This story is republished with permission from Desmog.ca.

By Derek Leahy

Alberta Premier Jim Prentice begins an Energy East lobby tour today in Quebec City to try to woo the premiers of Quebec and Ontario into supporting TransCanada’s 1.1 million barrel-per-day oil pipeline proposal.

It is a sign the project is in danger,” Patrick Bonin, a Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner based in Montreal, told DeSmog Canada. “Over 70 per cent of Quebecers don’t want Energy East to be built.”

Ontario and Quebec announced last month that Energy East would have to meet seven conditions to gain the provinces’ approval of the 4,600-kilometer pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick. Included in these conditions is a demand for a full environmental assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline.

An analysis conducted earlier this year by the Pembina Institute, an energy think tank, found the greenhouse gas emissions from extracting the oilsands bitumen to fill the Energy East pipeline would erase all reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by Ontario’s phase out of coal-fired power plants. The analysis did not include emissions from combustion, which would make Energy East’s carbon footprint even higher.

If Ontario and Quebec are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change then the Energy East tar sands pipeline project is dead already,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

Prentice meets with Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard Tuesday and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in Toronto on Wednesday.

Energy East map

Ontario and Quebec’s conditions tougher than BC’s

This is not the first time an Alberta premier has travelled to another province on behalf of a pipeline project. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark famously inflamed relations with Alberta with her five conditions for the Northern Gateway pipeline, which resulted in some icy meetings with then Alberta premier Alison Redford.

Clark’s demand to receive a greater share of the fiscal benefits from Northern Gateway was a contentious issue between the two western provinces, but she did not go as far as Wynne and Couillard in insisting the pipeline’s greenhouse gas emissions be properly assessed.

The National Energy Board’s reviews of pipeline projects aren’t taking climate change into account, which has left a leadership vacuum that the provinces are stepping in to fill. New pipelines facilitate expansion of oilsands production, leading to higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Ontario's seven conditions - from government website
Ontario’s seven conditions – from government website

Belugas and more bad news for Energy East

Prentice’s visit comes during a turbulent public relations spell for Energy East.

Documents leaked to Greenpeace last month revealed TransCanada had hired global PR firm Edelman to work on an aggressive strategy of undermining Energy East opponents through tactics that included creating phony grassroots groups to give the impression of genuine support of the pipeline. The revelations caused TransCanada and Edelman to publicly part ways.

Beluga whale (Wikipedia)
Beluga whale (Wikipedia)

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, former Maple Spring student activist and author, announced on Radio-Canada just days after the leak that he was donating his $25,000 Governor General’s Literary Award to an anti-pipeline coalition and encouraged the public to do match it. Donations have reached $400,000 now.

Yesterday the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada announced the belugas whales of the St. Lawrence Estuary — where TransCanada has plans for an Energy East marine oil tanker terminal — are at greater risk of extinction than a decade ago, forcing TransCanada to halt work on the terminal.

It’s good news and bad news,” Bonin says. “TransCanada’s marine terminal at Cacouna probably won’t be built now, but it is sad to find out the beluga population is not recovering.”

Share
IPPs even worse rip-off than Site C Dam, SFU economist warns

IPPs an even worse rip-off than Site C Dam, SFU economist warns

Share
IPPs instead of Site C Dam? Don't go there, says SFU economist
Construction of a private power project on the Ashlu River (Photo: Range Life)

The following article by renknowned energy expert and SFU economist Dr. Marvin Shaffer is republished from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Policy Note

You would think that the fiasco of the government forcing BC Hydro in recent years to buy run-of-river and other IPP supply that it didn’t need, resulting in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, would have put that unfortunate policy on the back burner for a long time.

Not so. Clean Energy BC, the lobby group very ably representing IPPs in the province, has released a report claiming that BC Hydro could save $750 million to $1 billion if it were to buy a basket of run-of-river, wind, biomass and other IPP supply instead of building Site C. And apparently Minister Bennett is looking at that option as an alternative to Site C.

No reason to believe private power lobby

There is, of course, little reason to believe IPP supply would provide cost savings of $750 million to $1 billion relative to Site C. The estimates of such cost savings assume that IPP supply can be secured by BC Hydro at an average cost of $74/MWh, some 40% less than the average $125/MWh price BC Hydro contracted to pay after its last call for new supply.

The estimated cost savings also ignore the relatively low value of run-of-river and wind supply, run-of-river because of the disproportionate amount of energy produced in the springtime and wind because of the intermittent nature of the supply and consequent need for constant back-up. And, the estimated savings ignore differences in the cost of capital between publicly financed and private supply, and differences in the contractual rights to the projects at the end of initial contract periods.

From bad to worse

One can only hope that Minister Bennett does not jump from one bad idea (building Site C even though BC Hydro does not need that supply in the foreseeable future) to an even worse idea (acquiring high cost, low value IPP supply that we equally don’t need).

There is a far better strategy that BC Hydro should pursue.

What Hydro really needs

What BC Hydro really needs in the short to medium term is back-up for its hydro-electric system — assurance it will be able to meet all of its requirements even in drought conditions when hydro production is constrained. As well it will need more peak generating capacity — the ability to meet requirements in very heavy load hours periods.

The most cost-effective way to meet those needs is with the installation of additional generating capacity at BC Hydro’s existing hydroelectric plants — the so-called Resource Smart projects — and with strategically located natural gas turbines — available if needed but otherwise not run. The IPP run-of-river and wind projects don’t provide what BC Hydro needs and while Site C could, it would provide far in excess of what is required.

Minister Bennett would do well by deferring the development of Site C. Maybe one day it will be needed and a case could then be made that it is in the broader public interest notwithstanding the very legitimate objections of those most directly impacted by the flooding it entails. But it isn’t needed right now.

And nor is a return to the forced purchase of IPP supply. Been there. Done that. Don’t need to do it again.

Share

Economist catches Kinder Morgan skimping on Canadian taxes

Share
Economist catches Kinder Morgan skimping on Canadian taxes
Kinder Morgan Canada President Ian Anderson talks a good game on Canadian benefits from his company’s proposed pipeline – but economist Robyn Allan disagrees (photo: Kinder Morgan)

The following is an open letter to Premier Christy Clark from economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan

November 19, 2014

Dear Premier Clark,

Your government is an Intervenor in the National Energy Board Section 52 public  interest review. The hearing is to determine if Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project is worthy of a public license to construct and operate a twin pipeline. The system will transport more than 890,000 barrels a day of primarily diluted bitumen to BC’s west coast.

Most of this heavy oil is destined for Westridge dock in Burnaby where it will be loaded onto tankers for marine transit. The tanker traffic triggered by the expansion means two oil tanker transits a day in the Salish Sea and Burrard Inlet. A number of oil tankers will be regularly parked in English Bay and Burrard Inlet awaiting loading.

The Province’s application to participate as an Intervenor in the NEB process reads, “the Province would be directly impacted by the project’s economic activity, including that which would result in revenues to the Province.”

I am writing to you to advise you of results of my research into Trans Mountain’s tax obligation and how that fundamentally impedes the Province’s ability to receive revenue.

Kinder Morgan claims that Trans Mountain is a significant contributor to federal and provincial income tax revenues. The company is relying on this as proof it deserves a public licence to triple its pipeline capacity. Pouring tax revenues into Canada is not the story Kinder Morgan tells its US-based shareholders. Promoting Trans Mountain south of the border, Kinder Morgan boasts of cash tax refunds—two in the past five years.

From 2009-2013 Trans Mountain’s combined federal and provincial Canadian corporate tax contribution averaged just $1.5 million per year.

How could this be? The answer lies in complexities of the Canadian and US corporate tax regulation and Kinder Morgan’s tax planning culture which is explained in theattached brief.

I believe Canadians are owed an explanation why this US multinational pays so little in Canadian corporate income taxes. Trans Mountain plans to triple its capacity and because of economies of scale suggests it will pay a tax rate of 25% on its net income leading to about $100 million a year in federal and provincial corporate income tax.

Based on their structure and corporate culture, this is false.

Kinder Morgan does not pay its “fair share” now, and will not pay its “fair share” in the future—to BC or the rest of Canada.

The Province must request that the Canada Revenue Agency undertake a full and comprehensive audit of Kinder Morgan’s activities in Canada.

Sincerely,

 

Robyn Allan
Economist
cc. Honourable Michael De Jong, Minister of Finance

Share
BC sitting on enough geothermal to power whole province, say new maps

BC sitting on enough geothermal to power whole province: New maps

Share
BC sitting on enough geothermal to power whole province, say new maps
Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)

By Erin Flegg – republished with permission from desmog.ca

At a time when B.C.’s politicians are considering flooding the Peace Valley for the Site C hydroelectric dam, a new project by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says the province could be sitting on a figurative gold mine of power with low environmental impact.

The project used publicly available data to produce a database of maps and supporting information that show all the areas in B.C.that have the potential to produce geothermal energy. The project reports that, using existing technology, the province could produce between 5,500 and 6,600 megawatts of power — enough to power the whole province.

Ironically, the information CanGEA used comes mainly from the oil and gas industry, which is required by law to report on things like well depth and temperature.

The tip of the iceberg?

Significantly, information is only available for 23 percent of the province, indicating that once data becomes available for the remainder of the province, the estimates for geothermal energy production should be even higher.

In addition to comprehensive data about conditions below the surface, the report also identifies areas that, based on surface characteristics, show promise. These areas are primarily in the northeast of B.C. where access via roads and other infrastructure are already in place, largely thanks to natural gas development. Factors like these diminish initial exploration costs, a primary barrier to commercial geothermal development in Canada, making it more economically viable.

Canadian Geothermal Energy Association chair Alison Thompson said the information conforms to the highest global standards for determining energy potential.

“We have over 20,000 data points. We actually have real date. These are not estimates, there is no extrapolation,” she said, adding the report and the maps will be useful to industry looking to conduct explorations for sites in B.C.

A sustainable alternative to Site C Dam

Audio: Why Site C Dam is a bad deal for taxpayers, environment
The proposed Site C Dam would flood or disrupt over 30,000 acres of prime farmland

Geothermal energy could provide an alternative to large, expensive and disruptive projects such as the proposed Site C dam, which would flood an area the size of Victoria in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The joint review panel reviewing the Site C project took the B.C.government to task for failing to heed advice to explore geothermal as an alternative to building another mega dam for 31 years.

The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,”  the panel wrote.

Geothermal power can be build out incrementally to meet demand, rather than building one big project like the Site C dam.

A firm source of renewable energy 

Geothermal power plants provide a firm source of base load power, similar to a hydro dam. Dr. Stephen Grasby, a geochemist with Natural Resources Canada, says the environmental footprint of geothermal energy is smaller than other renewable energy sources, such as wind and hydro.

[quote]For instance, the surface area required to have developments like a wind farm, that takes a large surface area and has other associated issues with things like bird kill.[/quote]

Geothermal energy requires only a well and a heat exchange system.

“Drilling is relatively low impact,” Grasby said, adding with a laugh, “Worst case scenario is you accidentally discover oil or something.”

Drilling would be controlled by the same regulations that already monitor any kind of well drilling in the province.

Canada alone in ignoring its geothermal potential

Canada is currently the only major country located along the Pacific Rim’s Ring of Fire not producing geothermal energy. A Geological Survey of Canada report recently noted that northeast B.C. has the “highest potential for immediate development of geothermal energy” anywhere in the country.

The Site C joint review panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, that BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the engineering characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources, such as geothermal.

If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation,” the panel added.

Erin Flegg is a freelance writer and journalist, and her work appears in the Vancouver Observer, Xtra West and This Magazine. She holds an MFA in creative writing from the University of British Columbia.

Share
Former TD Bank Comptroller: Site C Dam too costly, unnecessary

Ex-TD Bank Comptroller: Site C Dam too costly, unnecessary, rushed

Share
Former TD Bank Comptroller: Site C Dam too costly, unnecessary
Site C Dam will unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions, says one financial expert

The following is a transcript of Rob Botterell’s recent speech to the BC Select Committee on Finance and Government Services. Mr. Botterell is a lawyer, former senior government official and former comptroller of TD Bank’s BC division.

I’m here today to talk about the pending Site C decision and the budget and fiscal implications. This project will be the biggest public infrastructure project in the next 20 years if it proceeds. It’s estimated, currently, to cost $8 billion, which would increase the provincial debt by over 10 percent. We don’t have accurate information on costs, so it could well be more than that.

Time is short. By my calculation, I will be reviewing $800 million of government spending every minute, so I would ask you to please review the materials that are in your kit, all of which is in the public domain. Further to the previous presenter, I would encourage you, in particular, to have a look at the report on energy alternatives in the right- hand side of the folder, which covers many of the items that were discussed just now.

I’m not going to deal with First Nations issues, but I do want to say that those who suggest that the courts will somehow pay less attention or do less to protect treaty rights, such as those of West Moberly, as compared to proven aboriginal title of Tsilhqot’in, are mistaken.

BC’s credit rating in jeopardy

While it’s true that B.C. has a triple-A rating, it’s also true that there are some storm clouds on the horizon. In May Moody’s gave B.C. a negative outlook due to the accumulation of provincial debt.

It’s my submission that it’s hard to understand how, if we can avoid part or all of it, adding $8 billion to the provincial debt helps to reverse that negative outlook. I think that’s a critical consideration in terms of the work. I’m sure you’re hearing many presentations on how taxpayer-supported debt could be used to provide much-needed infrastructure. I really encourage you to think about that as I make my presentation.

Need for dam not established: Review Panel

What would happen if you were going to the bank to borrow $8 billion for Site C? The question came up: “Well, is Site C needed?” The answer you would have to give is that the joint federal-provincial review panel concluded that the need for Site C has not been established. If the next question was, “How much is this going to cost?” you would have to say that the joint review panel concluded that they didn’t have the information, time or resources to determine whether the $7.9 billion cost is accurate.

If you were asked, “How much would B.C. Hydro likely forecast Site C losing in the first four years of operation?” you’d have to say that the joint review panel forecasts that it’s going to lose $800 million. And then the bank officer might say: “Well, what other alternatives were looked at?” You’d have to say that the joint review panel was either prohibited from considering — or did not have the information to sufficiently explore geothermal, wind, run-of-river hydro and other renewables, excepting power under the Columbia River treaty or burning natural gas to provide power.

Burning gas OK for LNG, but not for BC’s power needs?

Oh, you might say: “That’s interesting. What did the joint review panel have to say about natural gas?” Well, this is what the panel said: “Finally, if it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?”

Then you might be asked: “Well, how much could the government save in taxpayer-supported debt by using natural gas?” Some $6.5 billion is the likely savings. How much a year? One expert — and the information is in your kit — says that currently you could save $350 million a year in operating costs to produce the same amount of electricity.

[signoff3]

What about greenhouse gas emissions? If you’re saving $6.5 billion in capital and $350 million a year in operating, you’ve got room to buy carbon credits. So what should we do? What did the joint review panel recommend? “Well, it should go to the B.C. Utilities Commission.” What’s been the response of the Minister of Energy and the Premier? “Well, the B.C. Utilities Commission doesn’t have the capacity to look at it, and we’re going have KPMG do a little bit more research.”

Utilities Commission barred from reviewing Site C

My submission to you is that doing some KPMG research now — that hasn’t seen the light of day, that won’t see the light of day if it ever sees the light of day until after a decision on Site C is made — is no substitute for B.C. Utilities Commission open and transparent and accountable review. Those are key — key — commitments of this government and previous governments.

I’d submit that if the government decides to disregard the adamant opposition of First Nations, it’s fiscally irresponsible — particularly for an $8 billion project — to proceed without first referring this to the B.C. Utilities Commission so they can do the homework that the joint review panel said still needs to be done. If KPMG has done some internal work, that can go to the Utilities Commission and save the Utilities Commission some effort.

What’s the big rush?

We have the time. The joint review panel said that we don’t need power till 2028. And they did take into account LNG, contrary to Minister Bennett’s submission.

So here we are. We’ve got a huge opportunity here to get this right. What I would like to urge every one of you to do is to think carefully about what your constituents and the people that you’ve heard from during these hearings would like you to do. What they’d like you to do is to make sure that the cost is accurate, so that we know what’s going on and we’re doing this in the least costly way possible.

In the consultation document there’s a key phrase here, in terms of taxpayer-supported infrastructure: “It is important to build needed infrastructure, but we need to limit our borrowing and keep debt affordable.”

From my perspective and in my submission, the right thing for this committee to do is to recommend that this matter be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission and, if capacity of the B.C. Utilities Commission is at issue — after all, they reviewed Site C before, so they know what they’re doing; they’re set up to do this — that you recommend that the funding be set aside in next year’s budget to provide for a full, expert and independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

This isn’t $800,000. This isn’t a mortgage for my house. This isn’t a mortgage. This is $8 billion at a minimum. What if it turns out to be $15 billion? I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes if that review hasn’t been done.

What’s the harm in doing the homework? Maybe the Utilities Commission will come back and say: “You know what? Site C is the best.” But everything in your folder and everything we’ve seen over the last few months suggests that we need to have a thorough look at this before making a final decision and that it shouldn’t be something rushed into.

Share

Behn, Gillis talk Yukon, fracking on CBC radio

Share
Behn, Gillis talk Yukon, fracking on CBC radio
The Liard River Basin is threatened by proposed fracking (Two Island Films)

Listen to this 11-minute interview on CBC Yukon (below) with First Nations resource management expert and  lawyer Caleb Behn and Common Sense Canadian publisher and filmmaker Damien Gillis – who has been co-directing a film about Behn for the past 3 and a half years.

Caleb Behn in Whitehorse
Caleb Behn in Whitehorse

Behn and Gillis were in the Yukon this past week to discuss the pros and cons of shale gas development, in advance of the final public hearings by the Select Committee conducting a review into the industry. The Yukon has had a moratorium on fracking since 2012, but is now considering reopening the territory to the controversial form of gas extraction.

The pair made presentations in Whitehorse, Dawson City and Watson Lake . The final public hearings take place this coming week, after which the Select Committee is expected to deliver its recommendations to the legislature by the close of this Fall sesssion.

Share
BC govt axes tree farm licence changes over widespread opposition

BC govt axes tree farm licence changes over widespread opposition

Share
Fatal flaw in BC govt tree farm licence changes
BC’s botched tree farm licence changes would put large global players ahead of local sector

By Peter Ewart – republished from 250news.com

It was a victory for the forestry sector as a whole and for all British Columbians. On August 28, quietly and without fanfare, Forest Minister Steve Thomson released Jim Snetsinger’s report on area-based tenures.  Although thanking Mr. Snetsinger for “a comprehensive and professional report”, Thomson noted that the Ministry “will not be proceeding with legislative changes that would enable forest licence conversions in fall 2014 or spring 2015.”

Tsilhqot’in decision played a role ion delay

According to the Minister, the decision not to go ahead with the controversial change to forest tenure at this time (which had as its core the creation of more Tree Farm Licences controlled by a few big companies) was because of the recent Supreme Court Tsilhqot’in decision and “requests from forest companies and communities to focus on key immediate priorities.”

Indeed, many came forward in the forest sector and forestry-based communities across the province to express their opposition to the proposed changes, whether at public meetings such as those organized locally by the Stand Up for the North Committee, or in written and oral submissions to the Snetsinger review panel.

Putting global giants ahead of local forestry operators

This is the second time in two years that the government has put forward the TFL conversion idea. And it is the second time it has been forced to withdraw it because of strong public opposition to what many feel was a further step towards privatization of our forests.  It raises the questions – How did the government get into this muddle?  What is the fatal flaw in its forest policy?

In a nutshell, it is the fact that the government appears to base its forest policy on catering to the interests of a few, increasingly globalized, big companies at the expense of all the other sectors of the forest industry, as well as British Columbians as a whole.

Too often, these other sectors are left out in the cold. They include workers, small and medium companies, independent wood processors, contractors, community forest associations, environmental and wildlife organizations, wood lot owners, forestry scientists and professionals, tourist operators, as well as, in the broader sense, First Nations and forestry-based communities.

Even Canfor speaks out against change

With this most recent attempt to impose more TFL conversions, the provincial government really botched the job as it didn’t even have all the big companies on board, rather only a small faction.  That was clearly illustrated when the CEO of Canfor Corporation, Don Kayne, spoke out against the proposed TFL conversions, charging that the government was “forcing unwanted tenure reform” that “brings the risk of serious repercussions for our sector” and “unfairly advantage some companies over others.”

BC needs real plan for forest renewal

So where do things go from here? The government, of course, has left itself wiggle-room to bring in TFL legislation in the future.  But the forest minister says that, for now, the focus will be on immediate priorities.

What will these priorities be? Will it be renewing our forest industry and bringing our forests back to health, as many argued for during the Snetsinger consultation process?  Will it mean developing mechanisms for more First Nations and community involvement in forestry decisions?  Or will it mean something else?

Whatever the Minister’s intention, the lesson from all of this seems clear: We need a plan for renewal of our forests which addresses the needs of all sectors of the forest industry, and which has the support of First Nations and communities.

Not half-baked schemes to enrich a few big globalized companies and their financial backers.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

Share
Hudson's Hope issues water quality advisory as heavy metals detected

Hudson’s Hope issues water quality advisory as heavy metals detected

Share
Hudson's Hope issues water quality advisory as heavy metals detected
Hudson’s Hope, BC (OurBC.com)

A water quality advisory has been issued by the District of Hudson’s Hope, in northeast BC.

Residents are being warned not to drink or use water from Lynx and Brenot Creeks.

The district advises against using it for “drinking water, livestock watering, and irrigation due to the presence of heavy metals at concentrations above the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines.”

“Boiling water will not make the water potable,” the district warns.

[quote]Abstain from using the water until further notice.

[/quote]

The contaminants discovered include:

  • aluminum
  • arsenic
  • barium
  • cadmium
  • chromium
  • iron
  • lead
  • manganese
  • uranium

The source of the contamination – and whether it is related to local shale gas activity – is unclear at the moment.

The Ministry of Environment has been alerted of the situation, the advisory notes.

[quote]The district is conducting additional investigations and will provide updated information as soon as available.[/quote]

District Office contact: 250-783-9901 / cao@hudsonshope.ca

Share
Gas industry contributes just 0.01 per cent of BC's revenues, very few jobs

Gas industry contributes just 0.1% of BC’s revenues, few jobs

Share
Gas industry contributes 0.01 per cent of BC revenues, few jobs
Two of the province’s surprisingly few gas workers – in BC’s Horn River Basin (Photo: Damien Gillis)

By Norman Farrell

Regular readers are aware that British Columbia’s natural gas industry provides surprisingly little return to the province by way of royalties for depleting non-renewable public assets. In the last two fiscal years, after accounting for drilling and road subsidies taken by or owed to producers, the province’s net gas royalty receipts averaged $2.5 million a month. That is less than 1/10 of 1% of BC government revenues.

Defenders of government policy suggest the industry is contributing much economic value to BC through jobs. Yet, government statistics show that only about 3,000 people are directly employed in oil and gas extraction. Education and manufacturing each provide more than 50 times as many jobs. Retailing, almost 100 times as many.

BC-jobs-by-sector

In 2013, Christy Clark’s government resisted calls from the motion picture and sound recording industry for subsidy increases, yet this non-polluting, non-depleting industry provides four times as many jobs as oil and gas extraction. It stimulates cultural and tourism activities and costs a fraction of the subsidies flowing to oil and gas production.

As Premier, Clark pays little attention to forestry, the traditional engine of our economy. The only part of the industry that remains busy is logging, a function that cannot be moved out of province.

BC forestry vs gas jobs
So questions arise. What influences a government to offer special treatment to one particular economic sector that provides scant economic return and relatively little employment?

Who and where are the real beneficiaries? In what jurisdiction, if any, is corporate income tax paid on profits of gas production and sales?

Were decisions to provide public funds and public assets fairly determined or were they improperly influenced by the flow of cash from industry to the holders of political power?

I think the answers are self-evident. British Columbia is governed by captives of industry.

NOTE: The chart below illustrates some of the hidden costs to BC taxpayers of subsidizing the natural gas industry. Feeling that they overpaid for leases that are yielding few profits with fallen gas prices, the industry has been granted a series of royalty deductions, now totalling some $5 Billion. Factoring in other ministry expenditures to the benefit of the industry, the natural gas sector has actually received $6.5-7 Billion in taxpayer subsidies since 2008.

Natural-Gas-Subsidies-by-BC

Norman Farrell is a BC-based political blogger and publisher of Northern Insights

Share