All posts by Common Sense Canadian

Pressure Mounts as 625 Scientists Sign Letter Calling on Harper not to Gut Fisheries Act

March 23, 2012Canada, Fisheries, PoliticsPolitics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Edmonton Journal on the letter signed by 625 scientists calling on the Harper Government to cease its plans to gut habitat protections from the Fisheries Act. (March 23, 2012)

Pressure on the Harper government to reject private sector pressure to water down the Fisheries Act mounted Thursday as a letter endorsed by 625 scientists warned Prime Minister Stephen Harper against any move to weaken the federal government’s most potent tool to protect the environment.

The letter’s signatories include 18 fellows of the Royal Society of Canada and was written by David Schindler, the Killam Memorial professor of ecology at the University of Alberta.

“Weakening habitat protections will make Canada look irresponsible internationally,” Schindler wrote.

Two former Progressive Conservative fisheries ministers, John Fraser and Tom Siddon, and the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, which represents 1,000 ecologists and evolutionary biologists, have also condemned the reported move.

Otto Langer, a retired federal fisheries biologist, released last week a leaked internal information spelling out planned changes to the Fisheries Act.

Read article: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Scientists+protest+Fish+changes/6346823/story.html

Water, Water Everywhere, but for How Long? Privatizing Water in BC

March 22, 2012Scarcity, WATERprivate river power, Privatization, Water and EnergyCommon Sense Canadian

World Water Day (March 22^nd) is a good time to consider this: Canada has nearly 10% of the world’s supply of fresh water. How lucky are we?

But what is all this water doing to earn its keep? Nothing. Or so think our politicians – and thirsty corporations like General Electric.

In 2010, GE (according to Council of Canadians, the world’s largest water company) and Goldman Sachs (uh, oh) co-founded the World Resources Institute Aqueduct Alliance. The basic purpose of the alliance is to map (and presumably lay hands on) the global supply of fresh water. After all, as the alliance points out, “In many regions around the world, water scarcity from climate change and pollution is starting to impact a company’s performance.”

Within a year the expanded alliance included Coca-Cola, Calgary-based Talisman Energy, Dow Chemicals and United Technologies, the world’s 10^th largest arms producer. (Knowing where water shortage conflicts might appear could, after all, be useful.)

Oh, what a web these companies weave.

In Alberta, the president of GE Canada was a member of the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy which last year recommended the creation of a new Alberta Water Authority. The new authority would facilitate buying and selling of water licences.

According to the council’s report, the authority would “also advise on policy changes to give holders of water licenses more opportunity to sell, lease or trade some or all of their right to draw water. Such changes will allow licensees holding water allocations they are not currently using or no longer need to lease or sell this surplus to others within the watershed at a price set by market forces of supply-and-demand.”

How bad could that be?

Ask the government of Australia. In the 1990s exactly this sort of water market was established for the Murray Darling River Basin. A 2001 drought started a water-rights speculation frenzy. By September 2010, the Australian government had spent nearly $1.5 billion buying back water rights at inflated free market prices.

Here in BC (where Talisman Energy already has a licence to divert up to 10,000 cubic metres (10 million litres) from the Williston reservoir every day for the next 20 years), similar plans are afoot.

The provincial government is expected to table a new Water Act in 2012. It is anticipated that the new Act will allow water licence owners (whatever the purported use licensed) to sell to the highest bidder. The new owner can arbitrarily change the licensed use from, say, agriculture to heavy industry. In a drought such as Australia’s, good luck to farmers who might need to buy water back.

Welcome to the deregulated water market.

Companies like Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) love it. BAM, one of two companies which shared ownership of most of BC’s public land forests and all the private land forests, is keen to get into the hydroelectricity game. (FYI, BAM director J. Trevor Eyton is also a director of Coca-Cola Enterprises.)

We sell them the rights to our water and they sell us their electricity. No wonder EcoJustice describes BC’s proposed Water Act as a pretty sweet deal for industry.

Yes, of course most industries require water and, within reason, they should have access to it. However, instead of turning our water rights into tradable commodities, how about we maintain control of our water for the public good?

Here’s a crazy idea for World Water Day. Industries could pay for the water they use by volume. Companies might decide to reduce the water they currently waste and that would be a bonus. Whether or not they do, the people of BC could be paid a fair fee for a precious resource. Instead of paying for corporate bonuses, the money could, oh, I don’t know, pay for health care and education? Perhaps some of the revenue could be used to upgrade our crumbling infrastructure.

Or we could carry on with plans to more or less just give our water rights away.

Miranda Holmes is an associate editor of Watershed Sentinel magazine. For more information on this topic, go to www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/ge-and-privatization-water

Province Clears Controversial Jumbo Glacier Resort in the Kootenays

March 21, 2012Urban & TransportTransportation and Urban PlanningCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report from CBC.ca on the Clark Government’s approval of the controversial, billion-dollar Jumbo Glacier Resort proposal in the Kootenays.(March 20, 2012)

The B.C. government has approved development of the controversial Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort, the country’s first year-round glacier-based ski resort.

The $1-billion development 57 kilometres west of Invermere, B.C., was first proposed — and cautiously endorsed by NDP Premier Mike Harcourt — in the early 1990s.

Since then, the project had passed all necessary regulatory and environmental hurdles, but stalled on final provincial approval.

On Tuesday morning, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Steve Thomson announced that final obstacle had been cleared and the ski resort was approved by the province.

“After more than 20 years of comprehensive and exhaustive reviews, it was time to make a decision. I approved Jumbo Glacier Resort’s master development agreement after reviewing all of the relevant documentation, and meeting with both First Nations and the proponent,” said Thomson in a statement.

The province says the project will attract $900 million in investment and create 750 permanent jobs…

…

The resort plan has divided residents in the Kootenays. A poll commissioned in 2008 found the project lacked public support, but proponents welcome the jobs and tourists the project will bring to the region.

Kootenay East MLA Bill Bennett, a longtime supporter of the Jumbo project, said he’s relieved to see the provincial government finally make a decision.

“This project has, for over 20 years, divided Kootenay communities. I am grateful for a final decision,” said Bennett in a written statement on Tuesday. “No matter which side of the debate you’re on, the majority of folks in the East Kootenay will be relieved by the certainty.”

Opposition to the news came quickly. Even before the official announcement was made, the NDP was highly critical of the decision.

“People in the Columbia Valley have been absolutely clear. They feel strongly that building a resort in this area does not make sense,” said Columbia River-Revelstoke NDP MLA Norm MacDonald in a statement released Tuesday morning.

“It doesn’t make sense environmentally or economically, and putting the B.C. Liberal stamp of approval on it doesn’t change a thing.”

NDP Leader Adrian Dix believes approving the resort is the wrong choice.

Read full article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/20/bc-jumbo-glacier-approval.html?cmp=rss

WCEL: Changes to Fisheries Act an Attack on Salmon

March 19, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Politics, Western CanadaPolitics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this blog from Andrew Gage at West Coast Environmental Law on the Harper Government’s plan to gut of the Fisheries Act. (March 19, 2012)

Last week fisheries biologist, Otto Langer, went public with a leaked draft of proposed amendments to the federal Fisheries Act which would remove any mention of fish habitat from the Act. When asked about these rumours in Parliament the government seemed to confirm that changes along these lines have not been ruled out, although in a statement on Friday Fisheries and Oceans Canada emphasized that no final decision has been made.

We don’t know the truth of these reports. Indeed, the proposed amendments are so outrageous that one might ask whether they are a “straw man” – an idea set up to be knocked down. Could this proposed amendment have been leaked so that when abandoned the government can appear that much more reasonable and balanced if and when it guts the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Species At Risk Act and other environmental laws?

We’re concerned about proposed amendments weakening a range of Canadian environmental laws, all of which are extremely important, but the amendments can be complicated. But the proposed Fisheries Act amendment, if real, is easy to understand: removing legal protection for fish habitat will harm fish. And, in BC at least, that will harm what is an iconic species – the salmon.
Appreciation for the salmon, and concern about its habitat, cuts across the supporters of all political parties. These proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act are about allowing business interests to destroy fish habitat and will be very difficult for the government to sell to Canadians.

OECD Report Predicts Dramatically Decreased Standard of Living Due to Environmental Destruction

March 18, 2012Climate Changeclimate change, EconomicsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from Agence France-Presse on a new report commissioned by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicting grave socioeconomic ramifications from increasing environmental problems. (March 16, 2012)

PARIS – Pressures on Earth’s ecosystem are now so great that future generations could be doomed to falling living standards, the OECD said on Thursday in a report looking to the mid-century.

“Providing for a further two billion people by 2050 and improving the living standards for all will challenge our ability to manage and restore those natural assets on which all life depends,” it warned.

“Failure to do so will have serious consequences, especially for the poor, and ultimately undermine the growth and human development of future generations.”

The report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) builds on previous peeks-into-the-future, ending in 2030, that focused on climate change, biodiversity and the impacts on health for pollution.

“The prospects are more alarming than the situation described in the previous edition,” it said, speaking of “irreversible changes that could endanger two centuries of rising living standards.”

Fracking Rig Fire Rages Near Hudson’s Hope, BC

March 15, 2012Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gasfracking, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this update from CBC.ca on a week-long rig fire at a Suncor fracking operation in Northeast BC. (March 14, 2012)

A fire at a drilling rig near Hudson’s Hope in northeastern B.C. has been burning for six days, following a blowout Friday night.

Suncor spokesperson Sneh Seetal said while the fire continues to burn, the situation is under control.

“We’ve brought in well control specialists. We’re conducting daily aerial fly-overs by helicopter. The fire has been contained to the site and the site is secure,” she said.

Seetal said “a handful” of employees were working at the site at the time of the explosion, but no one was injured. She also said air quality is being monitored and is not a concern at this time.

In February 2010 fire broke out at a Suncor oilsands upgrader, north of Fort McMurray, Alta.

Tories Pushing to Gut Environmental Assessment Act

March 15, 2012Canada, PoliticsPoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on the Harper Conservatives push to gut the federal environmental assessment act. (March 14, 2012)

Conservative and opposition MPs crossed swords Tuesday over recommendations to “modernize” environ-mental assessments in Canada that could speed up approvals of projects, while weakening reviews of potential environ-mental effects.

The controversial recommendations were introduced Tues-day in the House of Commons by a committee of MPs that is reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, adopted by the government of former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Michelle Rempel, a Calgary-based Conservative MP, said the 20 recommendations in the report could help the country avoid losing economic opportunities to lengthy reviews that need to be more “efficient” and “effective.”

But she was unable to say exactly how proposed changes would have affected a recent case in which a federal review rejected a proposal to turn a fishing lake into a dumping ground for a new mine after the project was approved by the provincial government in B.C.

“I think it’s important to note that the committee’s report provides recommendations to the government to explore and where there are opportunities to leverage provincial processes that are working, we should examine those,” said Rempel, the lead Conservative MP on the committee and parliamentary secretary to Environment Minister Peter Kent. “This is something for the government to respond to and I look forward to receiving that response and reviewing it.”

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie described the report as a work of “fiction” that avoided credible testimony during hearings and instead quoted from statements made by Conservative MPs who want to “gut” environmental protection legislation in Canada.

She also noted that Conservative MPs on the commit-tee shut down the review after only nine days of hearings, pre-venting an adequate review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as required by the legislation.

Dianne Watts Calls for Light Rail in Surrey

March 15, 2012Canada, Politics, Urban & TransportPolitics, Transportation and Urban PlanningCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts’ call for building light rail in Surrey as a cost-effective solution to long-term vehicle congestion as her community continues its rapid growth. (March 13, 2012)

METRO VANCOUVER — Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts is renewing her call for light rail transit south of the Fraser River, arguing rapid buses or a costly SkyTrain line to Langley won’t reduce increasing gridlock on city streets.

Watts said city taxpayers give $160 million every year to TransLink, but the city is not getting the transit service it needs to meet a growing population that is set to reach 750,000 by 2040.

In the past five years, the city’s population has grown 18.5 per cent — more than three times the national average of 5.9-per-cent growth in metropolitan areas. About one-third of the population is under the age of 19.

“When we’re faced with the growth we’ve had exponentially we see the challenges in that,” Watts told a packed crowd at her annual state-of-the-city address at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel.

Using the same stage backdrop — depicting a light rapid transit train — as last year, Watts said light rail is not a “request of the month” and she won’t give up fighting for it. She noted three light rail train lines could be built for less than the cost of a $2-billion SkyTrain extension to Langley.

Just adding more buses won’t be efficient enough, she argued, and rapid buses are “not 21st century.” A SkyTrain to Langley, she said, would run through Green Timbers Park and cut Fleetwood Town Centre in half. This would hamper the city’s goal of encouraging denser town centres, she said, and would only offer service between Vancouver and Langley when 80 per cent of transit trips in Surrey are expected to be in the city itself. Watts said that by 2040, the number of vehicle licences issued to Surrey residents is expected to increase by 50 per cent, while road capacity will rise 12 per cent, meaning a 40-per-cent boost in congestion and gridlock.

The city is in line for a B-Line bus service along King George Highway from White Rock to Guildford, buses from White Rock to Langley and a rapid bus along Highway 1 over the new Port Mann Bridge. A new Pattullo Bridge is also included in the TransLink plan. A study on a potential rapid transit line extension to Langley, linking to the King George station, is also underway. But Watts insists this should be light rail and not SkyTrain, because it will help shape and connect communities across Surrey’s vast land base.

Enbridge Lobbying Efforts Helped Kill Major North Coast Conservation Initiative

March 15, 2012Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gasCommon Sense Canadian

Read this bulletin from West Coast Environmental Law on the links between the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the recent cancellation of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort to create a new marine conservation arean on BC’s North Coast, titled PNCIMA.

Revelations on Sunday that Enbridge had actively, and successfully, lobbied the federal government to walk away from a decade long planning process with Coastal First Nations and the Province of BC do nothing to help the company’s embattled pipeline and tankers project, or its reputation with First Nations.

Coastal First Nations, environmental groups and the Province of British Columbia were all shocked last September when the federal government abruptly broke off an agreement on the development of a marine plan for the Pacific North Coast – a plan that had been almost a decade in the making. The federal government apparently felt that the plan might be co-opted and used against the Enbridge Pipeline, but we argued at the time that the government’s withdrawal actually increases the likelihood of a legal challenge by Coastal First Nations against the pipeline and associated tanker traffic…

…And now we receive word, via the Canadian Press, that Enbridge lobbied the federal government to withdraw from PNCIMA 8 months before the government withdrew from the agreement. Apparently Enbridge argued that the involvement of Tides Canada – which would have administered the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation funding – would have compromised the PNCIMA process:

“The funding by Tides Canada of the Coastal First Nations and other participants in the PNCIMA initiative raises serious questions about the objectivity of those parties in regards to the process and their oversight of Tides Canada in its administrative role with the PNCIMA initiative,” says one company slide.

“The PNCIMA process is too important to allow it to be hijacked by parties with clear and specific motives beyond the creation of an oceans management plan.”

There is a certain hypocrisy to this position, since Enbridge itself had funded workshops during an earlier stage of the PNCIMA process (albeit not to the extent of the Gordon and Betty Moore funding). It also occurs to us that Enbridge, who is part of the PNCIMA process, and for that matter the federal government, have a set of “specific motives” in relation to the pipeline and tanker project which go beyond the creation of an oceans management plan.

NDP Press Release on Enbridge, Tankers

March 15, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsBC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Jan. 10, 2012

NEW DEMOCRATS STAND UP FOR COAST, OPPOSE ENBRIDGE PIPELINE

VICTORIA— As Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge tar sands pipeline begin today, New Democrat MLAs are reaffirming their opposition to the proposal due to serious environmental risks, including crude oil supertankers, and a lack of lasting benefits for people in the region.

“In the communities I represent, a clean environment is part of our way of life,” said Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena. “What I’ve heard my constituents say is that our world famous salmon runs are more important than anything Enbridge has to offer. The people I represent live here and make their lives here. It’s not just a squiggle on a map or a line item on a spreadsheet.”

While discussing the Enbridge tar sands pipeline Liberal premier Christy Clark claimed that “British Columbia’s coast does not just belong to British Columbia,” a view which North Coast MLA Gary Coons says is dangerous and misleading.

“Premier Clark ignores the fact that British Columbians in the northwest would see their livelihoods destroyed and B.C. taxpayers would be left to spend billions to clean up any mess created by Enbridge. It will be the Haida, the Haisla, the Gitga’at, and other First Nations who will lose their breadbasket. It will be the fishers in Prince Rupert who will be left high and dry. It will be the northwest bed and breakfasts and guide outfitters who will go out of business,” said Coons.

Stikine MLA Doug Donaldson said his constituents are concerned that if the pipeline is allowed to go through, it will only be a matter of time before there is a catastrophic pipeline rupture or oil tanker disaster.

“I am very concerned that Premier Clark doesn’t grasp the reality of tanker traffic along our coast. Last February, she compared the north coast to the St. Lawrence and said she didn’t ‘know why we’d ban them necessarily off the west coast’ Well – we have news for the premier. The north coast is not the St. Lawrence,” said Donaldson.

Northwest MLAs Austin, Coons and Donaldson will be making presentations to the review panel as will New Democrat Environment critic Rob Fleming. New Democrats have long opposed the Enbridge tar sands pipeline because it provides few long-term benefits while posing serious risks to the B.C. environment and economy.

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.