All posts by Rafe Mair

About Rafe Mair

Rafe Mair, LL.B, LL.D (Hon) a B.C. MLA 1975 to 1981, was Minister of Environment from late 1978 through 1979. In 1981 he left politics for Talk Radio becoming recognized as one of B.C.'s pre-eminent journalists. An avid fly fisherman, he took a special interest in Atlantic salmon farms and private power projects as environmental calamities and became a powerful voice in opposition to them. Rafe is the co-founder of The Common Sense Canadian and writes a regular blog at rafeonline.com.

Third Party on Horizon for BC?

Share

The question of a third party in BC politics has a long history and once, in 1952, it actually worked as W.A.C. Bennett and 19 members of the Social Credit League (not even a party but sort of a monetary cult) had the most members in the Legislature. Bennett wasn’t made leader until after the election!

There was a big effort to pull off a third party in 1975 during the Dave Barrett NDP government. The moving force was called The Majority Movement, an idea concocted one Sunday afternoon in the Kamloops home of lawyer and Liberal heavyweight, Jarl Whist. Whist, along with me, were the named two founding members. The idea was to put in place a party of the middle to beat the NDP, it being seen that the Tories and Liberals were going nowhere fast and the Socreds were dead in the water. It worked – sort of.

The idea went through BC like a brush fire. The Kamloops influence was quickly taken over by Vancouver politicos with some help from Victoria political wanabes. What it did, however, was concentrate the mind wonderfully for those who wanted the NDP out. The Majority Movement had no policy, no party organization, no money and no leader. What happened was that of the three choices available, the Liberals led by Gordon Gibson, the Tories by Dr. Scott Wallace and the Socreds by Bill Bennett, son of W.A.C., the Socreds looked like the best bet. Bill Bennett was scarcely charismatic and a lousy interview but was great in small groups. What he lacked in charisma was made up and then some by the flash, charm, brains and organizing genius of Grace McCarthy. I don’t think that the Majority Movement can claim that it made the Socreds through any deliberate policy – but it did make the Socreds into one strong party because, however accidentally, it put the argument into focus.

The Socreds weren’t a “third” party in fact but in the sense that they rose from the dead it was substantially the same thing.

With the break-up of the Socreds in the late ’80s after Bill Vander Zalm snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, a new demand for a “third” party was created and one arose – the Liberals under Gordon Wilson. What’s important to note is that the Liberals were a third party in two important senses – they started the 1991 election with no MLAs and Wilson had formally divorced his party from the Federal Liberals. That was important for many reasons, the main one being that Conservatives could support them without being traitors to their national party.

Do we need a “third” party in BC now?

I believe that we do. The NDP is riven with internal strife, with a leader that is unsuited to BC politics and that is meant and is a compliment – for it’s no place for the polite and civilized.

Would a third party have support?

The polls show that people will vote for a third party but that vote is like a mining stock that goes up in anticipation and goes down with reality, for at this stage that number only represents disaffection for the current parties. And let me say here that the Green Party is not what the voter is looking for.

If the new party is a rebranding of the Conservative party it will go nowhere. This is a critical point. British Columbians have an extreme distrust for Federal parties mixing in their provincial affairs. You’ll never get BC Liberals or Independents for that matter supporting a party that is part of Stephen Harper, or any other federal Tory leader for that matter.

Is the NDP an exception?

Not really, for the NDP have never been a threat on the national stage and no one, even Jack Layton, thinks for a moment that the NDP could get elected federally.

It’s instructive to look at the NDP electoral history. With the exception of 2001, the year of the wipe-out, the NDP vote stays around the 40% mark, win or lose. Even in 1996 – the only time the NDP won an election that wasn’t handed to them by a crumbling Social Credit party – they had just under 40% of the popular vote as Gordon Campbell managed to lose an election he should have won.

What must be assessed is this: where is the political vacuum?

Well, it sure as hell isn’t on the “right”. Quite obviously it’s the centre. We scarcely need another right wing party and if the Conservatives in fact or in name or both try to attract the “middle” they will die almost at birth.

That’s what concerns me about Randy White. Fine fellow but with baggage we don’t need including Right to Life, which is a terrible election issue and is outside of provincial jurisdiction and – unless I’m mistaken (that’s been known to happen, though very rarely!) – the question of jurisdiction becomes irrelevant once an issue like that gets talked about.

The name of the party is important and I believe that the less specific, the better. If the old Socred Party could be revived (it’s still a good trademark) but it would surely bring the likes of Wilf Hanni out of the woodwork with all the other unelectable wanabes that always pop up on such occasions. Moreover, The Social Credit Party will be remembered by its most recent term in office, the Vander Zalm years, and that’s not helpful. It must be remembered that probably 50% or even more of the population was as yet unborn or very young when the good Socreds were in power (until 1986).

My suggestion for a name is “the BC Centre Party” which ties the name to no one. Simple, says where it’s at, and its Mission Statement clearly establishes the party as between the NDP on the left and the Liberals on the “right”. The critical point is that the name offends no one.

Leadership in the birthing process is critical. It doesn’t have to be someone who actually wants to lead the party in the next election and, in fact, better that he/she doesn’t, but is happy to represent what the new party stands for until it gets organized and selects its proper leader.

Will it happen?

Not likely. Randy White, John Cummins and other first class people will be unable to understand why the Conservative Party can’t rise again. (Again? The last time they were in power in BC was 1933!)

I’m afraid that however much a third party is needed, human frailties and misplaced allegiances will prevent it happening.

Share

May 8 Rally for Wild Salmon – A Day We Won’t Forget

Share

Saturday May 8, 2010 was a fantastic day for all of us who want fish farms out of our waters. It all came together at Centennial Square in Victoria, culminating in a march on the Legislature. This was more than just a protest, although that it certainly was that.
The obvious event was the end of Alexandra Morton’s march from her home in Sointula – the settlement on Malcolm Island, just off the north end of Vancouver Island – to Victoria. It was a dramatic way to get public support for her fight to get fish farms out of our oceans and it was a gamble – what if it flopped?

As we will see, that certainly did not happen!

It was a time when many people and organizations which had been in this fight for some time could meet one another and bond.

It was a glorious time for many of us to see First Nations people so solid in their fight against fish farms and so eloquent in their presentations.

It was a time to get good publicity for a cause that is so dear to the hearts of so many – that was accomplished, but in a way no one would have foretold. More on that in a moment.

It was a time to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Alexandra Morton, and it indeed was her day. Only she could have made this day possible.

My neighbour, Gus Curtis, a brilliant nature photographer and I arrived at Centennial Park at noon, two hours before the Alexandra Morton march was to be there and already there were people arriving. By the time the marchers arrived, the park was full to overflowing whereupon all of us marched to the Legislature lawns.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and wife Joan address the Legislature crowd
We heard many speakers but unquestionably the speaking part was highlighted by First Nations, led by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who made it clear that they would not cease the fight until it was won. It goes without saying that when Alex spoke our faces were smiles of pride mixed with tears of admiration.

I have been in this fight from the time the Campbell government, in the Fall of 2001, lifted the moratorium on fish farms. In the early days the worry was escapement of farmed fish into our waters and into the spawning grounds, a worry that hasn’t abated. But a call from Alex told me of the even bigger threat from the proliferation of sea lice and the horrible impact they had on migrating Pink and Chum salmon smolts.

I was doing a show on CKNW at the time. When I interviewed Alex I was struck by her quiet, subdued perhaps, yet forceful presentation.

Wendy and I made arrangements to meet Alex at Echo Bay in the Broughton Archipelago.

We stayed overnight in Port McNeill. That evening I received a call from Jennifer Lash of the Living Oceans Society who warned me that the mayor of Port McNeill had vowed to keep us from going on the boat to go to Alex’s house and that it might get ugly.

Mayor Gerry Furney was known to me as a flatulent demagogue, as long on hot air as he was short of grey matter, so I knew something mindless was in the wind.

At 7:00 AM Wendy and I were greeted at the pier by a large crowd with Furney hurling abuse at me through a loud hailer. It was scary but I walked up to a man directly in our path to the dock and asked “are you really going to physically prevent my wife and me from going down on the dock”. He hesitated but a second, then moved and said “of course not”.

Furney obviously didn’t comprehend the possible consequences of making a public enemy of someone before a crowd.

We met Alex and she took us on a tour of the fish farms and showed how they were sited so as to be directly in the path of migrating wild salmon. Her calm demeanor, knowledge and toughness under a serene presence were almost spellbinding. Here was a woman who knew what she had to do and was going to do it.

Alexandra Morton and Chief Bob Chamberlin at Victoria's Centennial Square
May 8th was Alex’s day.

How did we get publicity without actually getting publicity?

The coverage by the Victoria Times Colonist, the Vancouver Sun and The Province – all Canwest papers – was so appalling that it became a story itself that highlighted for the crowd there and eventually the public generally just how biased Canwest is and how snug in bed they are with the Campbell government.

The Province devoted two short paragraphs on A28 saying that the crowd was nearly 1000. The Times Colonist and the Sun did a contrast in views on the sea lice issue and ignored the speeches including a great one from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. They also said the crowd was nearly 1000.

Ironically, the lie was put to these absurd crowd estimates by their corporate sister, Global News which had the figure at 4000-plus. They couldn’t have lied because they had the crowd on film. (You can judge for yourself by looking at the picture below).

4,000-5,000 jammed the Legislature lawn in Victoria on May 8 to speak up for wild salmon

This yellow journalism of the Canwest papers was not only contradicted by its sister TV station; the Internet was flooded by angry witnesses laying out the truth. I daresay Alex got more coverage by far from angry witnesses than she could have got even with honest reporting.

May 8th in Victoria was more than an event – it was a happening. People from far and wide, native and non-native, young and old came together to protest to the government by paying their respects to and showing their love for Alexandra Morton, the Californian who came to BC to watch whales and ended as the saviour of her adopted province’s wild salmon.

It was a day none of us will ever forget.

Share
Rafe Mair

Rage and Sorrow Over Government Lies and Lost Legacy

Share

Last Friday Gwen
Barlee of the Wilderness Committee and I, on behalf of The
Common
Sense Canadian,

addressed a group of young – at least they look young to me! –
teachers at an ESL college. We were invited because they were hearing
more and more about the BC government’s Energy Policy and they
didn’t like what they were hearing and wanted more information.

On my way home
I started to wonder where my mind was going because I felt a curious
feeling – deep rage combined with every bit as strong a feeling of
sadness. Had I become overwhelmed by the enormity of the ongoing
blatant lie which is the Gordon Campbell dictatorship? Was I getting
like that person we all know, obsessed with something – perhaps a
marriage breakup, maybe a lawsuit – to the point you avoided them?
Crossed the street looking the other way in order to avoid this
tiresome “victim”?

Tonight we’re
having dinner with two old friends who are strong Liberal supporters
– how do I avoid becoming a pain in the ass about what this,
clearly the worst government in BC history, was up to. He is a former
Socred minister, so as we meet, fairly regularly, politics is a
natural discussion – but how can I be part of that discussion when my
rage is white hot and tears only a millimeter away?

I examined my
emotions as I looked again at Dr John Calvert’s piece on the
ridiculously named Clean Energy Bill (elsewhere on this website) a
paper where every sentence makes one angry. Two paragraphs especially
stood out. Here they are:

“To take advantage
of the Government’s politically driven targets for new electricity
supply, private power developers will dam up dozens of additional
rivers all across the province, imposing enormous – and entirely
unnecessary – damage to some of BC’s most precious wilderness
areas. And Hydro will have to build thousands of kilometers of new
transmission lines to service the new power projects, which will do
even more harm to BC’s environment.

The Act is also
designed to promote private sector exports of electricity, exposing
the misleading nature of the Government’s earlier assurances that
its Energy Plans were designed only to meet BC’s domestic energy
requirements. The export agenda will require BC Hydro – and its
ratepayers – to accept the enormous price risks associated with
paying a premium for the developers’ new private power in the hope
that they can recoup this expenditure when selling into the US
market. Contrary to the claims of Minister Lekstrom, this is a recipe
that guarantees private profit by making the public bear the risk.”

There it is – just
what I along with my partner Damien Gillis, along with our colleagues
like Tom Rankin, Joe Foy and Gwen Barlee have been saying for years
now. We are now headlong into a province of private power with rates
set not by what it costs BC Hydro to generate power but what
California, indeed what the market says the price is. And I feel
white-hot rage and bountiful sorrow. For here is the end of W.A.C.
Bennett’s legacy, his dream for BC.

I’m not going to
eulogize Bennett for what he did environmentally in the Kootenays and
Peace River. It was horrendous and along with much of young BC I
raged against it.

But what did he
leave?

We had power, not
clean and green as it was made but clean and green now
because the environment insult was in the past so that now we can
provide clean power at a fraction of the cost on the market.

Why did Bennett do
this?

He perceived power as
a public trust which must be tailored to the needs of British
Columbia. He knew that the private ferry company, Black Ball, would
never take on runs that weren’t profitable and he also knew that
coastal communities would suffer. Realizing that coastal communities
help finance roads and bridges in the Lower Mainland that they would
never use thus the province had an obligation to see that they had
their kind of transportation so he bought Black Ball which became BC
Ferries.

Bennett knew that a
private railway would also never build lines unless they were
profitable, so he took over the old PGE, which became BC Rail.

Bennett knew that we
could have one of the lowest energy costs in the world and that
British Columbians, whether homeowners or industry, ought to benefit
from this. Power became a matter of policy of the government British
Columbians elected and could un-elect.

The Campbell
government has all but destroyed that legacy.

BC Hydro’s
transmission lines have been taken away; BC Hydro is being forced to
buy power from private companies at double or more the export market
value and this on a “take or pay” basis. The annual dividend our
public coffers receive from BC Hydro will be gone, gone south into
the pockets of people like Warren Buffet, leaving us with heavy
operating deficit that drains our public coffers. This all in spite
of the fact that because private companies can’t produce power in
the winter when the water levels are low, BC Hydro (that’s us,
folks) must buy power it can’t use and sell it at a huge loss. If
you need proof of this, ask yourself this question: if private power
will provide power for BC use why do we need Site “C”?

This Energy Policy
has been one long falsehood starting with the ongoing lie that BC is
a net importer of power with Campbell telling us that we must be
energy self-sufficient, which is where private power comes in –
somehow
private power we can’t use will make us self sufficient!

We all expect
governments to gild the lily. We all do that in our private lives but
we don’t expect them to issue one bald-faced lie after another and
build an energy policy on those lies.

I’ve been in
government and while we and the opposition vigorously fought over
policy we both knew that the fight was over ideology or for political
reasons. We might massage the consequences a bit and the opposition
accordingly tell us that we were selling out the province but neither
of us accused the other of lying and keeping the public in the dark.
 

In those days, we had
a media which examined every jot and tittle of policy and
legislation. Every day we were battered by some of the best
journalists in the country. If our government had proposed to have
and expand fish farms, the outcry of the media would have easily
drowned the rage of the opposition. If we had decided to take local
government’s zoning rights away in order to pay off our dear
contributors we would have been the headline story in the news, both
broadcast and print. That’s the way it was and we in government
hated it – but it made us better governors.

I think my rage and
sorrow have been greatly enhanced because I was a cabinet minister
when our feet were held to the fire on a minute by minute basis by an
alert media whose outlets permitted them to say what they wanted.

Now we have the
so-called “Clean Energy Bill”. (By way of aside, if you hear
government and industry, and the lickspittles like Citizens for Green
Power call themselves “green” and/or “clean” you can be sure
that the very opposite is the case).

Among many things
this Bill will castrate the BC Utilities Commission – the public’s
supposed arm’s length regulator – which had the temerity to render
a report that said that the government’s private power policy was
“not in the public interest”. Under this government, God help an
independent commission that calls it like it is.

Our abandonment of
public power in favour of private companies that produce power when
we don’t need it, thus sell it at a huge loss, will be complete
once this bill is passed. We, the long-suffering public, have a
government that piles one lie upon another, a media which is little
more than government shills, and an opposition quite unworthy of the
name.

This means we must do
it ourselves. We must educate ourselves and write the premier and his
MLAs; We must do as Bill Vander Zalm and Chris Delaney are doing with
the HST; and, forgive the vanity support organizations like The
Common Sense Canadian
.

How can this be done?

The famous American
lawyer, Clarence Darrow was asked “how can I ever thank you” and
he replied, “Madam, ever since the Phoenicians invented money
there’s been only one answer to that question.”

We can make the
bastards behave if we write, chant, march and support all who are
fighting full time.

This
must be done if we’re going to leave our province intact for the
young and those to come.

Share
The Peace River Valley

Site ‘C’ and Other Bad Ideas for BC

Share

Site “C” is a bad idea from every point of view.

Let’s first consider if it’s necessary for BC needs. The short answer is that it isn’t, for out of the mouth of BC Hydro we know that with a modicum of conservation, upgrading existing dams, putting generators on flood control dams and taking back – under the Columbia River Treaty – the power we export under that agreement, our needs as far as we can see are taken care of.

Premier Campbell says that there are many “hurdles” to clear, meaning, one assumes, environmental hearings. If we believe that, like Charlie Brown, we believe that Lucy won’t pull the ball away at the last second. There are, you see – two flaws in this statement: first, environmental assessment procedures don’t deal with the question as to whether we want the dam in the first pace; and second, no matter what the reports are, the government can and does what it pleases. If Campbell wants this dam, he’ll have it whether we need it or not – whether we want it or not.

When was the last time a government turned back a project it wanted because an environmental panel didn’t like it?

Will these panels, federal and provincial, consider the loss of 5,340 hectares of land, much of it farmland? Whether or not they consider it, it won’t matter since the Premier knows about that now and by proceeding with the passage has written off all that land.

He’s also written off the animal world including caribou which graze in this area. If we know one thing about Campbell, he doesn’t give a fiddler’s fart about animals, be they be salmon destroyed by fish farms, fish and other wildlife dependent on rivers he’s given away to large offshore companies, nor about the birds that need Burn’s bog for nesting or as a transitional stop while migrating. He’s appointed Environment Ministers who get their jollies by kissing his backside as he ravages the province with their unneeded lickspittle support.

This important question remains unanswered: with all this private power the Premier is so proud of coming from the rivers he’s given away to the likes of Warren Buffett and GE, why aren’t we using that instead of building Site “C” – after all, their supporters prattle on about looking after 500,000 homes here, 500,000 homes there, and 500,000 homes somewhere else?

This is the only honest answer the Premier could give: because private power companies can’t produce energy in the winter when the rivers are so low and when BC Hydro might need it. (Don’t expect that reply because, as we know, honesty is not Campbell’s strong suit).

We must all get this through our collective skulls, folks – Premier Gordon Campbell doesn’t care for the environment other than when it can serve foreign hunters shooting Grizzly Bears, allow Norwegian companies to ravage our waters with fish farms, serve offshore companies he can give our rivers to, or land for his developer friends.

Another product of Campbell’s reckless energy plan is that the cost of energy will skyrocket (and is already doing so) – which will hurt citizens through their power bills and through the loss of jobs, as already hard-hit industries see their energy costs go through the roof (this according to the Joint Industry Electrical Steering Committee that represents large industrial power users). No doubt many are too young to remember WAC Bennett but it was he who developed the “Two Rivers” policy – the Columbia and the Peace – which would make BC self sufficient in energy. We paid a huge environmental price for this but we got what Bennett wanted – the right to charge what we please for power irrespective of what others had to pay.

To Bennett energy pricing should be a matter of government policy, which is to say public policy, so that business could have a lighter burden and British Columbians could pay reasonable prices because the construction costs were long behind us.

This was part of Bennett’s overall plan that included BC Ferries and BC Rail. He knew that private ferry companies and private rail companies couldn’t care less about services for people or creating an incentive for development. In that last regard, much of British Columbia wants tourism very badly because of the near collapse of the lumber industry. Does anyone think for a moment that CN will put in new lines and adjust prices to help these communities?

During the election last May, I was often asked how I could support the NDP given my background as a Socred. The answer was simple.

“Suppose”, I would say, “we have an NDP government that makes a balls up in fiscal management (although how they could do worse than Campbell I don’t know) that can be fixed by another government”.

However, once you lose your rivers and your fish, they’re gone forever!

We didn’t think about that last May and what Damien Gillis, Tom Rankin and I – none of us even remotely interested in socialism – were talking about has come true.

We must start now to fight this regime every way we can, short of violence, to get our province back. And we can start by joining Alexandra Morton in her trek from Sointula to Victoria bringing the protest against fish farming to Campbell & Co with a huge rally at the Legislature Buildings on May 8th – further details at SalmonAreSacred.org.

Share

The world’s shortest blog!

Share

Premier Campbell’s decision to go ahead with Site “C” demonstrates what I’ve said all over the province and written for anyone who will print it for nearly three years:

“Run of River, better stated as private power initiatives, will not supply power to BC Hydro because it produces its power during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need it!”

This is the question Premier Campbell must now answer –

Now you have admitted that private power will not be going for BC consumption but for export, and now that you’ve approved Site “C” to produce power for our use, will the private rivers policy, which destroys our rivers to supply power in the United States, be ended with no new licenses to be issued?

Share
Photo by David Nunuk

Taku Watershed: Salmon Stronghold Threatened by Mine

Share

A world-renown tourism destination and home
to all five species of pacific salmon, multiple species of trout, and
200 plant and animal species, the Taku Watershed is threatened by a
plan to re-open a 50 year-old mine.

 

You will know Rex Weyler as a co-founder of Greenpeace, the author of the definitive history of that organization which started in Vancouver, and author of many books the most recent of which was The Jesus Sayings.

Not long ago I attended a public meeting on the public power issue and heard Rex speak and an eloquent and timely speech it was. It made me uncomfortable, as I’m sure it did others because I could see he was talking to all of us. Simply put, our desire to consume is running ahead of the world’s ability to supply what we want. Rex concentrated on oil, the production of which has peaked – meaning that we consume more than is being discovered – but he went further and described what we now insist upon having, compared to that which satisfied our grandparents. He asks if we’re really happier than they were.

[See and hear this speech here.]

It made me think – since last December, Wendy and I have flown to London and return, then to Auckland for a cruise that got us to Bangkok thence the flight home – nearly 50 hours of helping airlines consume fossil fuels not to mention the cruise ship. Was Rex talking to us?

You’re damned right he was – all of us.

We, all of us, must re-evaluate our priorities. The older of us grew up in the era where there was always another valley to log and another stream to take the place of the one under the new subdivision. There was this need to constantly expand without any concern for the consequences. Rex asks the critical questions that I used to ask when I chaired meetings on Sustainability for Metro Vancouver – where does it all end? Do we just go on expanding, cutting an ever-greater swath through the environment without a care because we just know there must be more nice stuff over yonder mountain?

Perhaps it’s best that we do our plundering of Mother Earth far away where we can’t see it…In a recent article I asked why, if we were going to turn Fish Lake into a toxic dump for a mine, shouldn’t we log Stanley Park, subdivide Little Mountain and develop Burns Bog? What right have we to save our favourite places while destroying areas we can’t see?

We, at The Common Sense Canadian are committed to fighting the Campbell’s private river policy with all our might and main – while devastation is planned over that range of mountains that blocks our view of the Taku River.

Out of sight, out of mind?

The Taku River rises in Northern British Columbia and spills into the Pacific near Juneau, Alaska. To get a sense of what this wild river looks like you will see, attached, some wonderful pictures by David Nunuk – courtesy of Nola Poirier who, along with First Nations’ people and local concerned citizens, is working hard to raise concerns about this proposed mine.

The Taku has all five species of migrating salmon plus the Steelhead, (a sea going Rainbow Trout), resident Rainbows, Cutthroat, Dolly Varden, and Bull Trout.

*A science note – at one time the Rainbow and the Cutthroat were classified as true trout along with Atlantic salmon and Brown trout (prefix Salmo) but that was changed some years ago and they are now classified as Oncorhynchus like the five migrating species. The Bull Trout and the Dolly Varden are close relatives, namely Chars (Salvelinus).

Mark Angelo is a renowned river conservationist, paddler, teacher and writer. He served as head of the Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology for many years and is now the Chair of their new Rivers Institute. Also Chair of the Outdoor Recreation Council of BC and founder of BC and World Rivers Day, Mark is broadly viewed as one of North America’s pre-eminent river conservationists. In 2008 The Outdoor Recreation Council found that the Taku was one
of the most endangered rivers in BC, owning to this mining proposal.


Here’s what Mark had to say in a recent article:”… the Taku is the best international watershed left for salmon, hosting robust populations of the five Pacific salmon species. A multimillion dollar commercial and sport fishing industry depends on the Taku as does a less quantifiable but equally significant First Nations and native American cultural connection of countless generations.”

Mark continues… “also dependent on the Taku is the watershed’s extraordinary biodiversity – grizzly bear, bald eagles, sea lions and forest primeval – dependent on salmon as food and nutrient source. Research has demonstrated that the marine-derived nutrient salmon deliver far into the interior via natal watersheds benefit nearly 200 plant and animal species …”

He goes on, “Encompassing almost 19,000 square kilometers, the Taku watershed remains wild; fully intact, without roads and other development”.

Now the problem. There is a land use plan (LUP) being developed between the Tlinget First Nation and the BC government, BUT the provincial government is determined that mining be allowed – and there is a prospective mine upstream from the salmon rearing sites. Redfern Resources has been proposing for several years to re-open an
old zinc-copper-silver-gold mine on the Taku, near Atlin, BC – closed
in 1957 by then owner Cominco. Minerals from the Tulsequah Chief Mine
would be shipped down river by barge. Roads required to access and
build the mine would fragment key habitat and threaten the river with
inevitable acid drainage. Because we share the Taku watershed with our
Alaskan neighbours, the issue is of concern across the border as well.
Redfern Resources recently went into receivership amid questions about
project costs – but we now by way of Alaskan authorities (not our own
provincial government, mind you), that plans are in the works to
transfer the claim and project proposal to another company. As long as
there’s value to the resource, this river will be at risk – which is
why the public must come to its defense.


One must also ask: if you’re going to have a mining operation
and all that entails, what’s the point of an LUP? No one is suggesting that masses of people will be moving into the area, so surely an LUP protects existing values against existing perils – and you can’t protect the values of the Taku if there’s a mine. That simple.

Moreover, once you do have the mine, that’s the thin edge of the wedge. More development will come and the river will, like so many others, be sacrificed for the use of mankind.

Let’s go back to Rex Weyler. He makes the point that mankind will keep on consuming until there’s nothing left to consume. Two examples: That’s what happened on the east coast cod fishery as fishermen were clamoring for the right to fish when there weren’t any fish left; that’s also what happened on Easter Island where the inhabitants destroyed their abundant flora in order to make those big statues and kept on making statues even when the end of the flora was in sight.

Is this what our fate is! Are there no stop signs? Is nowhere sacred except the tiny bits of the outdoors near large centres of population? Stanley Park is sacred but the Taku is not because city folk can see the park but not the river? Do we believe, contrary to all the evidence, that we can both mine the ore and have fish and wildlife too?

Or have we perhaps decided that we must have “progress” and that that trumps the environment? Is British Columbia the new Easter Island where we will go on building monuments to our stupidity and to hell with the consequences?

Perhaps it will be the Taku that answers that question.

Wouldn’t it be great – if unlikely – if we said NO!

To learn more and take action, go to http://www.takulegacy.org

Share
Fish Lake (Teztan Biny)

Fish Lake: A battle worth fighting

Share

The Campbell Government signed off last year on turning Fish Lake (a.k.a. Teztan Biny), home to 85,000 rainbow trout, into a toxic dump for Taseko Mines’ proposed “Prosperity Mine,” west of Williams Lake. Now, as the federal government wraps up its public Panel Review of the proposal, TheCanadian.org is calling on all Common Sense Canadians to write to Stephen Harper and let him know they what they think of turning lakes into toxic mining dumps. Even the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has expressed grave concerns about this one – and is it any wonder? The plan is to turn a perfectly healthy lake into a tailing pond, then build a new lake to replace it! Where’s the sense in that?

I want to talk about two matters here … and they’re very much related – Fish Lake and the Federal Government’s aquatic policy. I’m deeply indebted to John Werring, Habitat Specialist for the David Suzuki Society, who once worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for much of the background information on this story.

I want to speak especially to citizens who basically support the federal Tories and Liberals, and those who support the Liberals in BC. I’m going to plead with you to put your province and country ahead of politics. If we’re going to have any chance at all to save our environment we must rise as one and say that party loyalties must be trumped by caring citizens and that if we don’t take this position, we will be, as Churchill said at the time of Munich in 1938, quoting the Bible, “weighed in the measure and found wanting”.

Our sights must be set mostly on the federal government because the Campbell government has told us, decision by decision, non-decision by non-decision, that they simply don’t care. Wild salmon be damned, lakes and rivers be damned, sensitive ecological areas be damned – we’re going to let our friends in the corporate sector do what they please and any environmental actions we take will be shams and we won’t even try to make it look good.

Campbell & Co, like Harper & Co, couldn’t care less about aboriginal concerns.

Let’s look at Tory policy and come back to Fish Lake specifically in a moment.

Harper has selected 18 lakes or rivers across Canada as open to mines for dumping their tailings into. This is where their heads are!

A recent survey by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), looking at key sustainability indicators, found that over half of our rivers and lakes in Canada are fair to poor in terms of water quality.

Who cares?

It is the firm policy of the Tory government that Aquaculture will double – and DFO has been warned not to even mention “closed containment”.

We have, John Werring observes, on a broad range of environmental issues, reached the tipping point and the public is still dozing, content or at least complacent with governments’ unwillingness to protect the environment and the creatures in it.

Let’s tackle the existing government policy head on: they believe that corporations will find it in their interest to care for the environment so we needn’t trouble them with tiresome regulations let alone enforcement.

Many years ago, our local and very influential right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute, put out a study that claimed that it would be in the public interest for all rivers to be privately owned. The then Executive Director, Michael Walker, told me that private use would mean the best available use.

Stunned, I replied, “But the best available use of a river for industry is as a sewer”, the proof of which is evident worldwide. I asked, not believing what I was hearing, what would happen to Rafe Mair’s Fishing Camp, down stream from the Anything Goes Paper Mill when it spilled black liquor into the river and killed all the fish?

He replied that my little fishing camp could sue the company and he was astonished to hear me say that was cold comfort indeed for my little fishing company.

We must understand that the sole rationale for a corporation is to make money – if they are “good corporate citizens” it’s because it’s in their interest to be so.

I believe in the “free market”, provided there are laws and policemen to enforce them. Tories and Campbell Liberals don’t like rules that impede the “progress” of their political donors.

When Campbell came into office I asked Joyce Murray, who was as close as they would get to an environment minister, if she was the policeman in the environment?

Heavens no! she replied, “I’m here to help industry get past all that environmental red tape”. You’ll be comforted to know that she’s a Liberal MP now and, no doubt, she stands up boldly in Caucus for the sanctity of our fish and wildlife with the same dedication we’ve come to expect from her ilk.

Let’s look now at Fish Lake. I’ve written about this on TheCanadian.org – A priceless BC asset threatened by mining – but I want to deal with just two of many available points here.

What the hell sort of society have we become when we would even consider killing 85,000 Rainbow Trout so that a mining company could dump its tailings and assorted crud in their lake – and not see the black humour in their offer to build another lake?

Why aren’t we rising as one in protest? Did our mothers and fathers not instill in us any respect for what God gave us?

Let me pose this question: if killing lakes and all that’s in them is acceptable practice, why hold hearings at all? Better just get on with it rather than waste time with “show” hearings.

Last, but for sure not least, involves First Nations. They aren’t going to lie down and take it either over killing Fish Lake or over the proposed Enbridge Pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, thence by tanker down the coast. Governments aren’t paying attention – they’d better.

I know we’re all tired. Never in my long life have I seen so many serious assaults on our outdoors by so many people in so many places.

But damn it, we have to fight! This is war! A real war on us by our own governments. We must do all within lawful means to stop these bastards now – for if we don’t, there won’t be much left for those we leave behind.

Blue Gold: The Tsilhqot’in Fight for Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) from Susan Smitten on Vimeo.

Share
Campbell should have known better about salmon farms - Rafe Mair told him so!

Campbell on Salmon Farms: Playing Dumb or Just Plain Dumb?

Share

I will only say it once, I promise you!

“I told you so”, which I direct at former minister John Van Dongen – who gives “stubborn Dutchmen” a whole new meaning – and at Gordon Campbell. And the subject, in case you didn’t guess, is Atlantic salmon fish cages on the coast of British Columbia.

Let me lay out the options these two face: they’re either a) too dumb to understand what I, and bless her, Alexandra Morton (and others as the issue gathered steam) were telling them; or b) they deliberately refused to look at the evidence, refused to betray their corporate donors like Norway’s Marine Harvest, and for nearly a decade lied through their teeth to us the public.

Now, the “too dumb” choice might apply to Van Dongen, who is easily the thickest politician I’ve ever known – and believe me that covers a lot of territory. But no one would call Gordon Campbell stupid – joined at the hip to the far rightwing Fraser Institute. An anti-environmentalist, for sure; a serial teller of falsehoods, you bet. But not stupid.

Let me say that I take no pleasure in being proved right. I simply cannot, naively perhaps, understand why a premier would want to jeopardize the wild fish in our province.

Early on, Van Dongen, then the Minister of Agriculture and Lands (who up until Alex’s court victory last year had jurisdiction over BC’s salmon farms) told me that the public didn’t care about fish farms. I said, “They will, minister, they will.” I know the people of my province and I knew that once they had been told the story they would rally around our salmon.

Unfortunately the NDP have done a terrible job on this issue as they have on the Private Power issue, which I will deal with in another column.

Premier Campbell has known from the outset of his becoming premier what this issue was all about.

In September 2004, at his request, I did a report to him personally on what the scientists were saying

I said, in opening, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the question of Atlantic salmon fish farms in BC waters. I believe that you have been badly misinformed on this issue and that had you had time to examine it, as you did the Kemano Completion Project, you would have seen that the threat of fish farms to our wild salmon is infinitely more serious”.

I went on, “I think … that you have been very badly advised. This is, of course, an occupational hazard of being Premier when you must accept what Ministries say. You will remember when we fought the Kemano Completion Project that it became abundantly clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had become politicized with all the fine scientists that had cast doubt on the project having been sent packing one way or another. You will see reference to this in the presentation of Dr. Neil Frazer. (They were dubbed the “dissident scientists” by Alcan, a sobriquet they proudly bore). The DFO remains politicized and in fact has the mandate to promote aquaculture while, supposedly, protecting the wild salmon. I simply cannot believe that if you had been in full possession of the facts that this situation would have reached this sorry pass”.

Then later, “I believe that if the onus is properly placed, namely that the fish farm industry must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the safety of their industry, they would fail miserably. It is wrong that the onus is placed upon the public.”

I then presented him with the evidence of Alexandra Morton, the Honourable John Fraser on the “Precautionary Principle”, the evidence of Dr John P. Volpe, Ph.D. – then with Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta, now at the University of Victoria – and Dr Neil Frazer, a BC fish biologist presently at the University of Hawaii. Each of them made it abundantly clear that sea lice from fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago were slaughtering migrating Pacific salmon smolts.

Then on September 26, 2007 I wrote this to Mr. Campbell:

“Dear Premier,

Below I have pasted the recent letter of 18 independent scientists and the presentation I made to you three years ago.

I press you on this matter, sir, because when you were leader of the opposition you played a big role in saving the Nechako and the sockeye who travel through it to spawn in the Stuart system. I also well remember you seeing a picture of sockeye spawning and saying that you were much impressed and that you would never do anything in government that would hurt our wild salmon”.

This was their conclusion:

“Pink salmon infected with sea lice, June 1, 2007, Broughton Archipelago, BC

We the undersigned agree that based on the published scientific evidence, the only management action that can ensure the protection of wild salmon stocks from farmed salmon is a complete physical barrier to pathogen transmission between wild and farm salmon (closed containment). We are aware that such changes may have economic consequences for the industry. The science is clear (my emphasis). It is now up to the government and the people of Canada to decide whether the economic benefits of aquaculture, as currently practiced, outweigh the threats to wild salmon and the ecosystems and economies that depend on healthy and abundant wild salmon populations.

We write this public letter out of a sense of duty to future generations.

Respectfully,

David Suzuki, Ph.D. Founder ,David Suzuki Foundation; Daniel Pauly, Ph.D. Director, Fisheries Centre University of British Columbia; Richard Routledge, Ph.D.Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science Simon Fraser University; Larry Dill, Ph.D. Professor and Director, Behavioral Ecology Research Group,Dept. of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University; Mark A. Lewis, Ph.D.; Center for Mathematical Biology University of Alberta Wade Davis, Ph.D. Explorer-in-Residence; National Geographic Society; Boris Worm, Ph.D. Marine Conservation Biology Dalhousie University, Halifax; John Volpe, Ph.D. University of Victoria Environmental Studies Victoria BC; Don McQueen, Ph.D. Emeritus Research Professor; York University, Toronto. Adjunct Professor, Simon Fraser University; Craig Orr, Ph.D.; Executive Director Watershed Watch Salmon Society; Coquitlam, BC; Neil Frazer, Ph.D. Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Hawaii at Manoa; Rob Williams, Ph.D. University of British Columbia St. Andrews University Pearse Island, BC; Michael Burt, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus University of New Brunswick Gordon Hartman, Ph.D. Retired Biologist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Lance Barrett-Lennard, Ph.D. Co-chair Resident Killer Whale Recovery Team; Paul Spong. Ph.D. Director, OrcaLab/Pacific Orca Society, Hanson Island, BC;
Helena Symonds, Director, Orcalab/Pacific Orca Society
Hanson Island, BC; Alexandra Morton, R.P.Bio. Director Salmon Coast Field Station Echo Bay, BC.”


There is no doubt in my mind that the public, now aware of the truth, are demanding that these fish farms be moved out of our oceans – for something else is happening. More evidence is emerging suggesting a possible link between salmon farms and the disastrous collapse of our Fraser River sockeye – many of whom are passing by up to 60 salmon farms right now, as young smolts migrate out to sea up the Georgia and Johnston Straights and through the Broughton.

Just before I conclude I wish to again make it clear that the lady who came to BC from California to study whales, and stayed to try to save our salmon, Alexandra Morton, is a true hero. It was her courage and determination that brought this issue to where it is today with an aroused population demanding action. I’m proud to have had radio shows in the past which had the privilege to hear the truth straight from Alex.

I conclude with this: this crisis, the loss of hundreds of thousands of wild salmon so corporations could take huge profits out of our oceans at the expense of our wild salmon and distribute them to their shareholders – nearly all whom don’t live in BC – did not happen by accident. The premier and his government knew from the moment they took office in 2001 that farmed salmon were escaping and taking over the spawning grounds of wild salmon and establishing themselves; they knew from 2002 on that wild salmon smolts were being slaughtered by lice from Atlantic salmon fish farms because I can tell you that every word I said on air or wrote came to the attention of the Premier; every study by Alexandra Morton, and peer reviewed an published was known to this premier; he knew of every scientific report which confirmed Alex’s findings because I told him.

I seek and take no credit for this – I was merely the mouthpiece. What I do say is that the premier of this province, refusing to accept overwhelming evidence of distinguished scientists all over the world, with knowledge of the consequences, put the interests of the fish farmers ahead of our wild Pacific salmon – which is the soul of our Province and the way we are identified around the world.

If he had a soupçon of decency he would legislate the fish farms out of existence, then RESIGN.

Share

Hansen and Campbell’s Private Power Falsehoods

Share

The trouble with talking about simple issues concerning private power is that their evil is so egregious people have trouble believing that any government would tolerate it. While one can understand that corporations don’t give a damn about the environment or, indeed, the well being of British Columbians, surely the government cares! Doesn’t it?

In a moment, we will get to a youtube video of BC Liberal Finance Minister Colin Hansen that contains so many falsehoods it would make Pinnochio blush! But first, let me lay out here the myths peddled by Hansen, Premier Campbell, and their private power pals – and the real facts that contradict them.

UNTRUE: BC is a net importer of power. What the premier does is prove again that while figures don’t lie, liars can sure as hell figure. Campbell uses BC Hydro’s figures and neatly avoids the fact that it’s not the only major provider of energy – if you include Alcan, Teck Cominco and Fortis, according to the National Energy Board, which supervises power sales and purchases, BC is most often a net exporter of power. It does import from Alberta and Washington sometimes, but does that in off-peak periods, then flips it back to them at peak periods for a very large profit. It can do this because it can “store electricity” in the form of water in its large public reservoirs.


UNTRUE: In order for BC to be energy self sufficient, it needs private power production. This is an egregious falsehood. The vast majority of private power can only be produced during the spring run-off period – a time when BC Hydro has plenty of power and full reservoirs. During the winter months, when BC Hydro sometimes has need of power most of these private power projects can’t provide it.

UNTRUE: BC Hydro depends on dirty power from Burrard Thermal. When the public’s supposedly independent (no more, thanks to Campbell) energy watchdog, the BC Utilities Commission, rejected his latest private power call for being “not in the public interest,” Campbell promptly steamrolled over our regulator. He and his ilk falsely claimed BC Hydro was depending too much on Burrard Thermal, and, thus, should be buying more private power instead. For starters, BC Hydro only uses Burrard Thermal a few days out of the year as back-up power, so families don’t freeze in their homes when other power sources unexpectedly go down. Campbell has also deliberately saddled BC Hydro with onerous “worst case scenario” requirements to have far more power than it needs – and on top of that to have even more “insurance” power – all to justify more private power contracts. Campbell has no intention to stop using Burrard Thermal! The only thing that has changed is that BC Hydro now has to pretend Burrard doesn’t exist on its books, so as to falsely boost its needs for private power! What’s more, besides hydro power, natural gas, which Burrard Thermal uses, is cleaner than any other source of firm energy (excepting perhaps geothermal). It thus makes abundant good sense to keep Burrard Thermal as backup power for the few days in the year when BC Hydro needs electricity.

UNTRUE: Private power plants are “green”. This is a falsehood that even Pinocchio in his prime wouldn’t utter. While each plant is different, they all have an enormous, often devastating effect on rivers and their ecology. Fish in rivers are the canary in the mine. Power plants badly silt the river when being built; they require roads and transmission lines that mean clear cuts. The building and operation of private power plants severely damage fish, thus impacting heavily on bears, eagles and other wildlife upon which the entire ecology depends.
After they’re built there is a permanent siphoning of up to 90% of the flow into a tunnel, not to come back to the riverbed for many kilometers. This means that the river, for all intents and purposes, simply doesn’t exist for the length of the diversion. Sometimes the water never comes back but is simply dumped into a convenient lake.

We must also bear in mind that it’s not only salmon runs we’re concerned about but also the resident Bull Trout, Dolly Varden, Rainbows and Cutthroat. This point is glossed over by governments and industry.

This is why other jurisdictions, like California, do not consider BC’s private river power projects “green”.

UNTRUE: Private power plants provide jobs. The fact is that the employment is confined to the building of the plant and according to Don McInnes of General Electric/Plutonic, the largest private power player in BC, only about a third of the labour force will be local. Once it’s completed, the facility is fully computerized – yielding a few jobs at best.

Here are the facts

FACT: BC Hydro is forced by the government to enter into contracts with private power companies at double or more than Hydro can sell that power for.

FACT: Because Hydro can’t use most of the private energy when it’s created, since it doesn’t need it, it must export the power at a 50% loss or higher. Premier Campbell has given us a new business technique – buy high and sell low!

FACT: Because BC Hydro must pay these unconscionable amounts to private power companies, it will not be able to pay its annual dividend of 100s of million dollars (nearly one billion a few years ago) into the provincial treasury where it goes into health, education, social programs etc.

FACT: The dividend paid annually by BC Hydro, that went into health, schools and social programs will now be going to shareholders of large corporations including General Electric and its largest shareholder, Warren Buffett.
Think about that when the government hasn’t enough money to look after its health and education obligations – think about it when you see the mentally ill, deprived of assistance, and sleeping under bridges…

FACT: BC Hydro will raise electricity costs dramatically (over 50% already in just a five year period – the mere tip of the ice berg). It must or else it goes broke. You can only take on so many Campbell-dictated sweetheart deals with private power producers for so long before you either pick up your losses from the citizenry and industry, or go broke. Either way the taxpayer loses, big time!

FACT: All our energy needs for as far ahead as we can see can, according to BC Hydro, be produced through conservation, upgrade of present facilities, new facilities on flood control dams and by taking back the power we’re entitled under the Columbia River Treaty. Moreover, because, as noted above, private power is produced when BC Hydro can’t use it, even if we did need more power it sure as hell won’t come from private power!

It must always be borne in mind that neither the governments nor industry give a damn about the environmental issues and their answers must be listened to in that light. They are not impartial judges trying to do justice but interested parties flogging a program they badly want.
To see what I mean, I invite you hear what Finance Minister Colin Hansen, the second most powerful member of Cabinet has to say.

The Finance Minister simply put, either lies through his teeth or is as dumb as a sack full of hammers.

He alleges that the province is a net importer of power (false), that private power is needed (false), that they are best to provide small scale power (false), that “run of river” projects are small (false), that the river continues to run at “its normal stream” (false).

In 1:51 minutes BC’s Finance Minister manages to produce five out and out falsehoods!

Simply put, the Campbell energy “plan” is one falsehood piled upon another.

Share
The Athabasca Tar Sands

The tar sands and us

Share

I cannot begin this article without mentioning the great column by Mark Hume
in the BC section of the Globe and Mail for March 27 on the proposed Enbridge
pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to the BC coast and thence down the coast
of BC: ‘It’s going to be bigger than Clayoquot Sound’.

The Battles of Battles

I spoke, in my recent column on Fish Lake, of the looming “battle of all battles” coming up on this lake issue but as the man said, “You ain’t seen nothing yet” for this is a multi-faceted fight, a war with plenty of wars within wars.

Here are the combatants: producers in the Alberta Tar Sands, the pipeline company and all they use for the construction, a large number of First Nations, the government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, the United States (big time) and the Environmental Movement.

What are the Tar Sands?

Here’s the skinny on the Tar Sands: They are located in Northern Alberta, comprised of three major deposits making Canada an oil producing superpower like Saudi Arabia. These projects cover an area larger than England, with proven oil reserves amounting to 175,000,000,000 barrels.

We’re talking heavy, thick oil which requires serious processing before it becomes usable. It’s a dirty, dirty business. In fact, the Alberta tar sands oil holds three or four times the greenhouse gases found in “traditional” crude, making Canada the largest per capita polluter in the world.

Andrew Nikiforuk, a noted writer on energy matters, in an interview with seasoned journalist Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight had this to say: “the Alberta tar-sands developments is the world’s largest construction project, the world’s largest capital project, and the world’s largest energy project – one that uses as much water in a year as a city with a population of two million”. More in fact than Edmonton and Calgary combined!

Points to ponder

  • The Tar Sands produces 40 million tonnes, annually, of greenhouse gas emissions currently; nearly the emissions of the Czech Republic
  • Tar sands GHG emissions may double by 2015
  • Producing oil from the tar sands releases three to five times more GHG emissions than oil from conventional sources
  • Every day the tar sands burn 600 million cubic feet of natural gas to produce tar sands oil, enough natural gas to heat three million Canadian homes
  • By 2020 tar sands GHGs will likely increase to 141 million tonnes, double the current emissions of all cars and trucks in Canada

Have we lost our minds?

What madness this all is! Wasn’t the idea that we’d wean ourselves off oil and concentrate our efforts and our money on substitutes? Can’t we see that by extracting oil that can only be viable if the price of oil is near $100 a barrel that we’re in fact making the high price of oil a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Who’s fighting whom?

In this corner we have the producers, the pipeline company, the governments of BC, Alberta, Canada, the United States of America, and more recently China and Korea – plus in all likelihood all the Chambers of Commerce along the way. Opposed are a number of First Nations and various environmental groups.

The governments don’t care

Ottawa, Edmonton and British Columbia will be thick as thieves and all will be
scheming in every way imaginable to get this job done. BC has already consented
to the tanker route so that problem is off the table. It must be borne in mind
that contrary to many assumptions, Canada supplies more oil to the US than does
any other country.

The pipeline is ostensibly being driven by a desire to reach new markets in Asia
as dirty tar sands oil comes under greater scrutiny from US lawmakers and a
public concerned about climate change. While this is true, the American market
for oil is growing – and its reliance on the Middle East is an increasingly
questionable policy. It’s thus fair to assume that some of those new Pacific tankers will be destined for the West Coast of the United Sates.

American politicians will be under enormous voter pressure across party lines because America’s entire economic future depends upon oil and power from Canada – which will put pressure on all three Canadian governments to play ball. In fact – and don’t laugh because it isn’t funny – as the demand for oil and power increases, be it BC energy or Alberta tar sands oil, if it appears that this oil and power is not forthcoming they are not going to let themselves have a massive depression and would threaten, at first behind closed doors and then publicly and meaningfully, to send in the troops. (If you were president of the United States and suddenly saw your economy in grave jeopardy – not a strong enough description – would you stand by and say “well Canada is our friend and as a sovereign nation can do as it pleases even though it beggars its neighbour?”)

The Constitution at rest

Under our constitution, the provinces control natural resources while Ottawa has power over exports backed up with the power of the purse. The Environment is a shared power. I don’t believe for a moment that the three Canadian governments will raise constitutional matters on this issue – from a social point of view (as in all things) Ottawa is too far away to care and for the two provinces, the economy will be all that matters.

They’ll not care that a pipeline goes through highly sensitive areas putting many animals, especially the caribou at risk.

It will not concern them for a nano second that an oil spill on the coast is not a risk, but a certainty; for a “risk” is an event waiting to happen. The question a “risk” raises is not “if” but “when”.

Enter First Nations


As I see it, then, the governments will continue their hypocritical two faced attitude towards the wishes of the people on things like the environment and other social issues.

It gets down, then, to the aboriginal peoples.

Gerald Amos, director of the Coastal First Nations, said recently “Natives have always understood the importance of protecting the environment, but with so many big resource projects proposed in B.C., it’s time to take a harder stand”.

“Perhaps we haven’t been strong enough… from here on out… we are going to be firm,” said Mr. Amos, who lives in Kitimat, near the terminus of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Mr. Amos said legal challenges and political pressure will be used to stop the
pipeline, but “if it goes ahead and tankers come through our waters, we are
preparing to put boats right across the channel and stop them… Whatever it takes.
Our position right now is that this project is not going to happen.”
[Emphasis mine]

Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief Alphonse Gagnon said “This Energy Summit was a reminder that the tar sands affects us all – from Fort Chipewyan to Haida Gwaii and beyond. We can only protect our lands and waters if we stand together.”

Will money do the trick?

There are two fights as First nations see them – the pipeline itself and the tanker trade down the coast – meaning, to put it bluntly, the governments must come up with a huge and complicated pay-off, if a pay-off will do the trick. Before First Nations people get angry with me, I hope they remember that on fish farms and private energy schemes some tribes have indeed been bought off. (When I say that, I dare not be critical because I’ve never been in the dire economic straits that some bands have been coping with since the European arrived.)

But while Gordon Campbell responded to a recent unified declaration led by BC and Alberta First Nations against the pipeline by touting the jobs it would create, these aboriginal leaders have been quick to address and dismiss that argument. Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit countered Campbell: “We do need jobs and work for sure in our communities. But…first nations have looked at this very carefully and said the risks outweigh the benefits.”

Conclusion

The long and the short of it is that none of the three governments involved give a fiddler’s fart for social and environmental issues. They look at those who do as simpleminded “lefties” who “are just always against everything”.

The opposition to the pipeline will win or lose based on whether or not the First Nations involved along the pipeline and along the proposed tanker route will stay the course they have now set.

Share