Article by Micheal Vonn in the Georgia Straight. “It comes right out and says that the government considers it part of the job of senior bureaucrats to fabricate crises in order to advance policy.” Read article
In the serious business of documenting environmental calamities, exposing politicians’ dirty tricks, and searching for solutions to the grave challenges of our time, the cartoon is truly an indispensable art – providing both incisive perspective to the issues we discuss, and much-needed comic relief. Let’s face it: any self-respecting publication needs good cartoons. And so it is our distinct pleasure to introduce The Common Sense Canadian‘s “Cartoonist in Residence,” Gerry Hummel.
Gerry immigrated with his family to Canada as a child in 1953 and has lived most of his life in Kitimat, BC. While working at the local paper mill and raising two children as a single-dad, he began working as a self-taught editorial cartoonist for the town paper in 1993. Several years later, he and the paper got sued by a local politician for being too honest – something Gerry shares in common with certain other people at TheCanadian.org. After that, the paper restricted his artistic freedom to such an extent that he was unable to continue working with them. Naturally, we think he will fit right in here.
In recent years, Gerry has continued drawing political cartoons and caricatures for specific causes, always taking the side of the little guy. He recently joined the ranks of the have-nots himself, a casualty of our recent economic recession, forced into early retirement due to industry cutbacks…which now means he can sit at home and listen to rock ‘n roll.
To commemorate this announcement, we proudly present Gerry’s first cartoon for TheCanadian.org, featuring our co-founder Rafe Mair and his close friend Gordon Campbell – a design you will soon be able to wear, as it graces our forthcoming, highly exclusive Common Sense Canadian T-shirts.
Welcome Gerry Hummel!
Click here to view full size.
We the people must do more than oppose environmental nightmares encouraged and sometimes committed by government.
Most, if not all, of the projects The Common Sense Canadian has been involved in, stack the deck from the outset. None could better make my point than Fish Lake in the Chilcotin area which got past the BC Environmental Assessment process like a hot knife through butter.
A federal review panel has has found major faults with the project – in terms of impacts on the environment and First Nations who depend upon it – but the final decision will be made by the Prime Minister.
Fish Lake is a good place to start for today’s rant but it could have started at any number of other projects.
Before we even consider environmental catastrophes like Fish Lake we must, as a society, make up our minds on this fundamental question: when decisions are made, do jobs and taxes trump the environment? If that’s so, we should cast off our cloak of hypocrisy and say so, leaving the Ministry of Environment the sole role of determining what rules will govern HOW, not IF the project is to proceed.
As anyone who has attended these public hearings can tell you,
one is only entitled to deal with the “how” not the “if” – unless you’re the company, in which case you are permitted to present for the meeting and for the media glowing descriptions of the benefits of the project with no risk of contradiction.
The companies invariably hold the meetings in out of the way places in halls that would scarcely handle a Sunday School meeting.
All companies committing environmental catastrophes tell us about the employment they will create. In all cases – you can depend on this – the figures are, to put it kindly, fudged. An excellent example comes out of private power producers who talk about the employment prospects from their dams – oops! I mean weirs – where in fact the only employment is for short term construction,
most of the jobs being low-paying and going to people from outside the project area.
After the dam – oops again, I mean weir – the computerized plant has one or two jobs only.
The tax issue is interesting, for when Premier Gordon (Pinocchio) Campbell was asked what was in it for BC with private power projects, he named off HST, corporate income taxes, municipal taxes, and income taxes on employees.
These same benefits would come from building a red light district.
We, the public, must continue to demand proper hearings on environmental issues as a matter of right.
But there is a much larger issue which we’ve all been avoiding: how long can we continue as a society which practices uncontrolled consumption?
For several years I chaired meetings for Metro Vancouver on sustainability issues. These were not hearings in the true sense and weren’t billed as such. They were opportunities to discuss the feasibility of a project or a policy, the object being that the panel of experts and the audience would be able to detail the problems to be overcome for the benefit of the politicians and staff. This was fair enough
because municipalities do provide citizens opportunities to question whether or not to proceed with a project, as any developer can attest!
I only raise this to tell you that at many of the meetings, as I introduced the panel and the subject, I would ask “where does this all end? Do we just continue to grow and grow assuming that there will always be another field to plow up for houses?” The question was never answered.
This is the decision we must make as citizens – and Fish Lake, private power projects, fish farms, logging, and oil pipelines/tankers all in issue now, bring this question into focus.
Rex Weyler, a co-founder of Greenpeace, made this point a few weeks ago at a public meeting. He simply, but provocatively, asked whether or not we can simply go on consuming and expect to have the goods we consume and still retain our environment? And that’s what Fish Lake and other projects I’ve mentioned are all about. For if our philosophy is that failure to “progress” means we must, like a Ponzi* scheme, move on to the next river, the next valley,
the next species still left in the ocean, we will suffer the fate of all Ponzi schemes – we’ll implode.
We don’t have to rip our environment apart in order
to have a prosperous society, as many world societies – Holland, Belgium and Switzerland come to mind – demonstrate. We are a resource-based economy because we can be not because we must. Fish Lake, private power companies, logging companies, fish farms and piplelines/tankers teach us that the resources we can now exploit
are no longer far away, thus safely out of mind – but still just around the corner.
Unfortunately, 200 years or so of ever-increasing exploitation of resources have created a society that doesn’t want to change. It’s like the fishermen in Newfoundland when their fishery was closed – they demanded the right to do what past generations had always done even though there were no fish left.
Our society wants to fish where there are no fish left, just as we demand the right to mine no matter where the ore is, or the environmental cost of so doing;
we want to log because that’s what we’ve always done; we want to destroy farmland for new neighborhoods and shopping centres just as always has happened; we want the right to fish and destroy habitat at the same time and we want to risk serious and permanent damage where pipelines and tankers go.
The case is irrefutable – we cannot continue this way.
Instead of saying “let’s find new ways to live and earn the money to do so; let’s really learn how to conserve; let’s stop our imbedded habit of built-in obsolescence so that we can use products longer”, we are in denial.
Instead of meeting a very obvious problem head-on and looking for solutions we will carry on until the last fish is killed.
Fish Lake is a message, a symbol that we do have to stop somewhere, re-group and look for ways to re-cast our society so we can live well without destroying our precious environment.
* A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.
With the G8 and G20 Summits over, one doesn’t have to look far for examples of anger and frustration at what did and didn’t happen.
There are many important questions being posed now that world leaders have left Toronto and the streets have been swept clear of broken glass and trash. From all NGOs being excluded from the media centre (the one with the infamous fake lake), and the violence on Queen Street in Canada’s largest city, to the reluctance to discuss important topics like climate change – the G8/G20’s legitimacy as effective bodies for global affairs has been called into question.
The concept of an overly expensive summit, which has long been a popular talking point for federal opposition parties, has become a hot topic for taxpayers and activists alike. The billion dollar price tag becomes even more of a black mark on Harper’s government and the entire G20 body when we discover that past summits’ security costs have been significantly less.
Toronto Mayor David Miller is demanding to know why negotiations were held in such a large city centre, while the “big-city mayors’ caucus” is challenging Ottawa to pay up and compensate the businesses affected by protests and civil disobedience.
Public opinion may heat up one more level with concerns of what The Guardian journalist John Hilary called “skulduggery” in Toronto last weekend. International media filmed police cruisers going up in smoke while Toronto Police have since been accused of playing a public relations game. Cruisers were allegedly driven into crowds, and left to be lit on fire while TV cameras around the world captured footage of the proclaimed anarchists’ handiwork.
All of these popular media headlines did little to explain real problems that have developed within the ranks of civil society. Furthermore, they entirely neglected to share with Canadians what actually happened at the summit. Only now have we begun to hear fragments of what happened with regards to the controversial bank tax, climate change, and national deficits.
Most problematic is the fact that people have lost faith in the Canadian government, corporations, law enforcement, and other relevant institutions. This G8 and G20 illuminated the holes in Canadian accountability, security costs being only the tip of the iceberg compared with broader issues.
Ideas on how to effectively deal with the big challenges of our time seem scarce. Perhaps this is the reason why 10,000 people felt they needed to flood the streets of Toronto to yell out their frustrations to what seemed like deaf ears within the summit.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on a meeting for world powers, while small nations were excluded from discussions on how to handle the global economy. The decisions made at the G8 and G20 will significantly affect the nations that didn’t have a voice at the negotiating table. The G20 is essentially a special club, that exists so countries like Canada and the USA can avoid the far less expensive and far more egalitarian United Nations – which gives a voice to small countries while allowing effective debate and discussion.
As Toronto returns to normalcy, my view of the G8 and G20 Summits has shifted dramatically. If the real problems of the world are ever to be solved, a more cohesive and effective method of dialogue and debate must be used. Now more than ever it seems necessary to try and unite advocates on the variety of causes people are currently campaigning for. The United Nations, an able body built on unity and cooperation, is there for us. Let’s use it.
Article by Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun.
“4. Campbell then ordered finance ministry officials to ‘go out and find
out how we’re going to meet the budget target.’ Next day they:
a) Cancelled plans to add a $600-million roof to BC Place.
b) Sought to borrow another $1 billion at the very attractive interest rates available to government.
c) Fired off a fast e-mail to Ottawa, asking what was the standing offer for transition funding on the HST.”
John Cummins. MP, Delta-Richmond East (Conservative), a former commercial fisherman, has called into question the appointment of four men to the Cohen Inquiry into the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye with the mandate to inquire into, amongst other things, the actions or non-actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
These men are Carl Walters, a fisheries professor at UBC, Brian Riddell, a former long-time DFO senior manager, Thomas Quinn, a fisheries advisor to DFO over the years, and Paul LeBlond, a long-time advisor to the federal fisheries minister of the day. All men are acknowledged as experts in the field and it is this which I will show, as Cummins has shown, that is the root of the problem.
There are two things to bear in mind here – first, Cummins is not calling the credentials of any of these men into question, and nor do I; second, the Commission directs Justice Cohen to develop recommendations “for any changes to policies, practices and procedures of the Department [DFO] in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery and included in this mandate is a complete review of aquaculture and its impact on pacific salmon. The review is to include government involvement.”
I am shocked into disbelief that Cohen would appoint these men as advisors because they are in fact witnesses, and important ones. Here’s what Cummins has to say:
Cohen ought instinctively to know that a full-fledged judicial inquiry into the department’s management of the salmon fishery should not, indeed must not employ people who had in any way advised the Department or those who had relied on departmental funding for their work. This is akin to asking them to investigate themselves and rule as to whether their advice was appropriate and whether it was properly implemented or disregarded by the Department.
The notion of a conflict of interest always seems to confound most those who ought best be able to spot one. One cannot begin to look at any aspect of the Pacific Coast Salmon fishery without immediately looking at the DFO over the years. This requires the closest look not only at the decisions they made but the advice they had, and from whom, when making them.
It is no more complicated than this: an investigation of DFO and its decisions requires that the actions of all who participated in the decision making process be carefully investigated. To have those who participated be advisors not witnesses is intolerable and I’m surprised these men haven’t declined on that account for one cannot be an advisor if one is a witness and each of these men are prime witnesses.
Is it fair to conclude that these advisors are being paid a healthy per diem which they wouldn’t get if they were advisors? I’m not suggesting that these fine scientists would put personal welfare ahead of duty but it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what would ordinary people think because as I will demonstrate in a moment, it’s appearances that matter so much in proceedings like these.
There is absolutely no way this can be avoided being said: Mr. Justice Cohen has, from the outset, disqualified his commission’s ability to carry out its mandate and must resign or re-constitute his advisors.
Many British Columbians were delighted to learn of this commission. Now, we were told, we would get out all of the evidence. We assumed that this was a “non political” exercise and dedicated to getting to the bottom of decisions made by DFO over the years.
Now, what do they find?
That the very witnesses who should be examined and cross examined Judge Cohen has sheltered from this by being made advisors!
It’s a matter of the commission seeming to be fair. The underlying principle by which our courts or tribunals operate can be stated, as it was long ago, thusly “Justice must not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. Be seen to be done…It must not only be fair it must be seen as fair. These advisors are precisely the people I would want to see examined and cross-examined were I the commissioner. What’s happened to Mr. Justice Cohen’s sense of fair play puzzles me greatly as it must all interested British Columbians.
I do not say that “the fix” is in, but given the way the commissioner has arranged to have witnesses made into advisors one might be tempted to ponder that notion.
For while the Commissioner, Bruce Cohen, may not be political, his boss, Stephen Harper – a man whose only demonstrated interest in the environment has been to let corporate friends destroy it – sure as hell is.
Commissioner Cohen must terminate these advisors and hand them subpoenas or forfeit his and the commission’s right to have the confidence of the public.
Read Conservative MP John Cummins’ press releases on the subject at www.johncummins.ca
It appears that the anti-HST signatures may approach 1,000,000 before the final count is presented on July 5. It’s interesting to note that the Liberal party only got 750,000 votes in the 2009 General Election. Because it’s certain that the anti-HST committee will reach its statutory requirements, two interesting questions arise: first what the government will do; and second, if they don’t call a referendum, what will the “anti’s” do then?
The long and the short of it is that the government doesn’t have to do a damned thing. For the record, the petition is referred to a select standing committee of the legislature which has 4 months to sit on it and if they recommend that the draft bill proceeded the government need only introduce the bill in the Legislature where it can languish forever.
For all practical purposes we can assume that the referendum will never be called. This notwithstanding the solemn promise of Gordon Campbell to make the process easier. Since we all know what his word is worth we had to expect he would lie about this too.
What position does this put the Campbell government in politically?
Rotten. To be candid, compared to stonewalling, he would be better to let the referendum go ahead, take the position that because he loves democracy so much, he will abide the wishes of the public blah, blah, blah. This is a terrible option but the others are worse. He will have this bag of political stones to carry right into the next election as an issue and that he doesn’t need.
I don’t expect Campbell will do this and probably he’ll advise the select committee to move quickly to send the bill back to the legislature where he can table it, never call it for a vote and hope that the public will not see it as a big deal in May of 2013.
What then do the anti HST folks do then?
Their obvious weapon is recall and here the requirements are even tougher than the referendum rules.
Here is what the Act says:
Requirements for recall petition
23 (1) A recall petition must comply with the following requirements:
(a) the petition must be submitted to the chief electoral officer within 60 days after the date on which the petition was issued under section 20;
(b) the petition must be signed by more than 40% of the total number of individuals who are entitled to sign the recall petition under section 21.
The last subsection means 40% of the voters’ list as of May 2009, a formidable obstacle.
There is one thing I must make clear. No one in this province would like to see the back of this Campbell lot more than me but the fact is recall wasn’t intended to be used to bring down a government or a cabinet minister but to recall a MLA for not doing his job of representing his constituents properly. I agree that one can stretch that to say “Premier Campbell is not doing a proper job of representing his constituents because he won’t oppose the HST” but it is a stretch and will form a major part of any government opposition to recall.
The opponents have no choice in the matter because that is the logical next step unless they want to holler “uncle” and fade away. Having chosen to go the recall route they will have to take on the Premier – and remember they must get 40% of the 2009 voters list to sign the petition before a by-election must be held in a riding the Premier carried comfortably in ’09.
Here’s what they’ll do if they’re smart. They will form that famous “new third party” and combine recall efforts with a membership drive. That won’t hurt their Recall efforts and may enhance them but even if they fail in the recall they’ll walk away with a hell of a lot of support for the new party.
The new party idea is not an easy one to make happen. I’ll get more into that in a later column but let me close with this point: the very last thing a new party needs is to be led by Bill Vander Zalm, Chris Delaney, Gordon Wilson or Wilf Hanni. These are the ghosts of failures past.
It will be difficult to find a way to build a party from scratch but, in my judgment, attracting the public requires one thing – a solemn commitment to the public right to be heard. People understand that no government can do all things for all people but government can and must get public involvement, in a real way, in the decision making process when basic change is proposed.
I’ve seen the phony baloney Environmental Assessment hearings of the past couple of years where the people weren’t allowed to deal with the merits of the proposal in question. The anger at the sham was white hot.
We’ve all seen the energy policy of this government which gives away our rivers, our environment, our power and, yes, our money to foreign companies take place in secret without any public involvement permitted.
British Columbians, in the main, are neither right wing nor left wing but ordinary, decent people who want fair play with the government as well as the private sector playing a role. They liked owning BC Ferries and BC Rail before the Campbell government got rid of them and want to keep BC Hydro. That doesn’t make them socialists any more than their support for a healthy, vibrant private sector makes them right wingers. They see matters issue by issue, not in terms of dogma.
A party that can offer people the right to be heard has a great future if it can find a way to overcome inertia and the pangs of birth.
As always, the devil is in the details.
The memorandum from Alexandra Morton which I circulated last Wednesday demands a deeper look into what the Campbell government knew when, in September 2002, they lifted the moratorium on fish farms. (For convenience I have pasted the Morton article below).
These documents arose in 1995 when the NDP were in power when they placed a moratorium on new fish farms.
This moratorium was lifted by the Campbell government and here is what then minister John Van Dongen had to say:
“… B.C. now has the most comprehensive regulatory framework in the world, including science-based standards to protect the environment.” (Emphasis added)
“… We’ve worked very hard on these regulations to ensure that they do a proper job of protecting the environment in British Columbia… we are confident the regulations will do that and we are confident we have a regulation in place that is leading edge in the world.“(Emphasis added.)
We must take Mr. Van Dongen at his word that “careful consideration” was given this decision and examine what even casual consideration would have disclosed.
Leaving aside questions of waste, drugged fish, coloured fish, the escape of farmed fish into the wild, and disease, what was the evidence the minister possessed on the question of sea lice?
There were, of course, the documents raised by Alexandra Morton in her memo. One would have thought that they alone would have convinced a careful minister that rather than permitting more fish farms, he should get rid of the ones that existed and at the very least force them to go to closed containment.
But, not only did Van Dongen have these remarkable memos to alert him of the sea lice issue, the facts available at that time show that the issue of sea lice from farmed fish cages destroying migrating smolts was a huge one in Norway, Scotland, Ireland and even New Brunswick. (It is important to remember that juvenile pink and chum salmon weighing less than half a gram are more than 10 times smaller than Atlantic salmon smolts, and thus much more susceptible to louse parasitism.)
What did the Campbell government know about the other jurisdictions concerning sea lice?
It can be said without fear of contradiction that even the most superficial look at the industry in Norway, Scotland and Ireland would have disclosed that the impact of sea lice from farmed fish on migrating salmonid smolts was a huge problem.
Norway had long recognized and attempted to minimize the sea lice threat enacting the Norwegian Action Plan Against Salmon Lice in 1997. Ireland and Scotland adopted similar sea lice reporting and control measures.
Ah, you say, but this is Norway, Scotland and Ireland, not BC!
Fair enough – let’s look at BC, though I don’t think that this would be Premier Campbell’s first choice!
In 2001, Alexandra Morton, then associated with The Raincoast Conservation Foundation (not to be confused with the Raincoast Research Society with whom Ms, Morton is now associated), identified the first epidemic of this lice species on juvenile wild Pacific salmon. Over 850 juvenile pink salmon, as well as chum, coho, and chinook salmon and adult local sea run cutthroat trout were examined in the summer of 2001. 77% of these fish were infected at or above the lethal level as defined by Norwegian scientists to be 1.6 lice/gram of fish. The epidemic’s epicentre was in the midst of active salmon farms, with very few to no lice where there were no farms. Far from showing the alarm one might have expected, the DFO wanted to charge Ms. Morton with “illegal testing”!
The fact is, that by September 2002, when the Campbell government lifted the moratorium on fish farms, Alexander Morton had clear evidence that sea lice were slaughtering wild salmon smolts as they migrated out to sea and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Federal) and the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries knew of Ms. Morton’s findings and the Minister and the Campbell Cabinet ignored this clear evidence of the horrendous impact of sea lice on wild salmon and lifted the moratorium anyway!
It’s this that takes the Campbell government’s decision out of the possibility of error and firmly into the realm of deceit.
What has happened since the Van Dongen announcement should give us all further cause for extreme concern.
When Alexandra Morton made public her findings re: sea lice and migrating smolts in the Broughton Archipelago in 2002 she was mocked, derided, and threatened with arrest. Scientific study after scientific study, all peer reviewed, supported her findings yet time after time the Campbell government ignored these findings and declared that science was on their side.
Clearly, not only did the Campbell government know the truth about the impact of sea lice from fish farms on migrating salmon smolts from the outset and chose to ignore it, they have compounded their deception by ignoring scientific study after scientific study ever since.
I suppose it would be ridiculous to think that Premier Campbell would at least now have the decency and honour to admit the truth and do everything he can to redeem his government’s disgraceful behaviour and make every possible effort to restore the fisheries it’s done so much to destroy.
A series of government memos reveal a heated debate in 1995 over a sea louse outbreak on a farm salmon on the Fraser sockeye migration route (Okisollo Channel). In 1995, a salmon farm requested permission to use hydrogen peroxide to treat an extremely heavy outbreak of sea lice on their fish. When the Ministry of Environment, Parks and Lands (MELP) informed the company that their drug application would have to be released to the public, the fish farmer withdrew the request. When environmental groups found out about the sea lice outbreak, the BC Salmon Farmers Association called for an investigation of MELP and a guarantee that fish farmers had a right to secrecy in the future.
September 6, 1995 Don Peterson of MELP writes, “The company has withdrawn their application (for hydrogen peroxide) because they heard there was a requirement to advertise if a pesticide was going to be applied. I guess they were either afraid of the shareholders…or the public finding out… the company has asked that this request be kept strictly confidential and that all correspondence on the subject be destroyed.”
September 28, 1995 the BC Salmon Farmers Association criticized Minister Moe Sihota (MELP): “…government has an obligation to maintain confidentiality… Government is further prevented from unauthorized collection, use or disclosure of information…. puts at risk … capital investment of private citizens and individual companies…”
However, salmon farms operate in Canada’s public waters and impact a Canadian resource – wild fish.
On October 23 Earl Warnock of MELP writes, “I find it unconscionable that they (fish farmers) are only prepared to undertake measures appropriate to protect their stock health and the environment unless they can do it in a clandestine manner…. and for them and MAFF to ask us to operate with them in this way says something about the people we are dealing with.”
“MAFF” = Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL).
Either the sea lice remained on the farm fish on the Fraser sockeye migration route or they were treated without permission from MELP.
November 03, 1995, Bryan Ludwig, MELP writes: “…we are in the difficult position of being concerned about use of pesticides for treatment of sea lice, but also wanting to ensure we avoid a severe outbreak for fear of transfer to wild stocks.”
These documents reveal heroes among our MELP bureaucrats who tried to protect our wild salmon from salmon farms. Gordon Campbell disbanded MELP as soon as he took office in 2001, and he renamed MAFF, MAL and gave them control of allocation of Crown Land. The fish farm industry did not develop a sea lice action plan, the public lost their government biologist advocates, sea lice outbreaks continue with lethal infection underway today rates on wild juvenile salmon on the Fraser migration route (Okisollo Channel) (photos available) and Fraser sockeye stocks migrating through Okisollo Channel are in steep decline.
October 23, 1995 Earl Warnock MELP: “If the truth harms their integrity perhaps they need to look at themselves…”
If we cannot save wild salmon in British Columbia, we do not live in a democracy.
All documents available at www.salmonaresacred.org, “Breaking News”
