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. View all posts by Rafe Mair →

Greenwash King Patrick Moore sews seeds of climate change doubt

September 26, 2014Climate Change, Climate SciencefeaturedRafe Mair

Greenwash king Patrick Moore turns climate change denier — Greenpeace co-founder-turned-greenwasher extraordinaire Patrick Moore

I hesitate to give the man any more publicity.

Patrick Moore, a former environmentalist and now a constant and consistent spokesman for right-wing causes, had an article on the op-ed page of the Vancouver Province, September 24th edition. In it, he denies the worldwide scientific opinion that global warming here, driven by humans, and a deadly serious problem. The Province, in my view, has become the leading journal of the right and regularly publishes the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation and the Fraser Institute so Moore is a natural for them.

A long way from Greenpeace

Moore has been utterly inactive in environmental matters for years – in fact, being an unspoken foe of those who are. This particularly includes Captain Paul Watson who has, with unbelievable courage, done so much to save whales and other mammals in our oceans. Moore bills himself as an environmentalist, which is Orwellian in the extreme and makes true environmentalists want to retch.

Moore plays on claims that he was a founder of Greenpeace (though this is disputed), a director of Greenpeace Canada and of Greenpeace International. This is somewhat like Satan reminding us that before he was tossed out, he was once a colleague of the Saints in heaven.

In fact, Moore was made unwelcome both at the Canadian and the International level and has been persona non grata ever since.

Moore was last in the news for criticizing the president of Greenpeace International for using airplanes for travel while he, Moore, regularly uses cruise ships to make lectures, and money – cruise ships themselves being a major consumer of fossil fuels.

Downplaying human-caused climate change

The pith and substance of Moore’s article is that there is doubt that global warming is actually taking place. He trots down the usual path, referring to times before the Ice Age and that sort of thing.

What Moore ignores is that since the Industrial Revolution, and particularly for the last hundred years, humankind, both socially and industrially, has dumped ever-increasing amounts of waste into the atmosphere. This makes the situation today vastly different then it was in the years gone by to which Moore refers. One is tempted to think that, given Moore’s self-proclaimed expertise and glibness, this is a deliberate oversight.

Sewing seeds of doubt

Moore then moves into the area of the law in talking about “doubt”. He clearly assumes that if any sort of doubt is raised about a proposition, it must fail.

This is not what standards of proof are all about and the standard cannot be the mere raising of doubt.

We have two choices as to standard of proof required. In civil cases it is called “balance of probabilities”, whereas in criminal cases it is “reasonable doubt” – a much heavier onus.

[signoff3]

The question of global warming has to be, of course, subject to standards of proof, as are all allegations that cannot be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever. But if mere doubt were the standard in criminal law, for example, there would be very few ever convicted of a crime. Any good criminal lawyer will tell you that he can raise a “doubt” in the most flagrant of circumstances.

It can even be raised about a man with a gun in his hand standing over a corpse. Even though the man with the gun is demonstrated to have been a bitter enemy of the deceased, a “doubt” can always be raised.

Criminal law sets the standard at “reasonable” doubt. This is surely the standard we must set with respect to global warming.

The science is clear

The scientific community has been investigating this issue very closely for decades. All the doubters, like Moore, have been heard and their arguments more than met. The result by 2014 is a very clear. Beyond a reasonable doubt, climate change is with us, with disastrous consequences for now and the future.

We, the general public, sit as a common jury assessing the evidence before us. We must decide whether or not the virtually unanimous opinion of the scientific community is to be preferred over the bleatings of Patrick Moore and his ilk.

What’s the harm in tackling climate change?

Another way of looking at this is: What if the scientific community is wrong? In that most unlikely event, we will have cleaned up our air and established a far healthier atmosphere in the world. Surely that would be a very good thing, no matter what impact warming was having.

On the other hand, if we follow Moore, and he is wrong, we have exacerbated in the extreme the catastrophe which faces us.

Patrick Moore is entitled to his opinions and, of course, The Province is entitled to be a shill for neo-lib views – but in evaluating Moore’s opinions one must remember where he is coming from. This former environmentalist is now a proponent of nuclear, supports the tar sands, pipelines, and tanker traffic carrying bitumen.

As that juror, I have no trouble deciding for the scientific community and that Moore has no credibility.

Patrick Moore is likeable and glib but, on a balance of probabilities, dead wrong.

Rafe: Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader

September 18, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Media, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark should try being more leader, less cheerleader — BC Premier Christy Clark dons Canucks jersey during 2013 election campaign (Andy Clark / Reuters)

Nowhere in the appalling record of the Liberal government in Victoria has its shortcomings been more obvious than at the very top. Premier Christy Clark has been a terrible leader whose pronouncements get more and more embarrassing as time passes.

However, she so dominates the government that one is hard-pressed to think of even the names of her cabinet ministers, which doesn’t say much for their abilities or courage to speak out on issues.

Tsilhqot’in move merited praise…BUT the proof is in the pudding

I recently applauded Premier Clark for making formal contact with the Tsilhquot’in First Nation. I did this because she was right to do so. What she has said since makes me wonder if she really understood what she was supposed to be doing. That she understands the obvious politics in what she has done is clear but there is no evidence that she and her government comprehend what must now be a clear policy. We wait and see with hope, if not much confidence.

Absence of political courage

The premier simply cannot get serious. She always thinks of photo opportunities and public relations. In so doing, she totally discounts the need for common sense or consistency with other government policies. What she considers least is the impact of her airy-fairy words on the issue in question. Her need to make sense is permanently diminished by her inability to do so.

Nothing in this bankruptcy of leadership has suffered more than the area of energy and the environment.

The Mount Polley catastrophe and the absence of any investigation into her government’s own role simply typifies the utter disregard Premier Clark has for the requirements of leadership – one of the main ones being political courage.

On environment, media hasn’t held Clark’s feet to the fire

Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun has much disappointed me on environmental matters since the Liberals took office in 2001. It’s not what Palmer has said – it’s the absence of any comment whatsoever which is troubling.

Considering Palmer’s yeoman service when the in the NDP were in power, we were entitled to expect that this same close attention to government policy would be maintained. In fact, in these areas there has been none from the mainstream media.

LNG: house of cards crumbling

Palmer has, in my view, redeemed himself considerably by his writings on LNG. He has consistently poked at the government and their starry-eyed approach to this question and, as time has passed, it is becoming clear that those of us who from the very beginning were throwing cold water on Clark’s blatherings were right after all.

My own skepticism was fuelled simply by what I read about the energy situation in Asia – of much more importance were the words of experts such as economist Erik Andersen and energy scientists who made it clear that the government had no grounds whatsoever for its wild enthusiasm.

“Prosperity” fund shrinks from $100 Billion to “billions”

This, I think, is what is so troubling about the Premier’s actions past and present. You may remember that during the last election, the “Prosperity Fund” which was the subject of the premier’s reveries, was going to add a trillion dollars to our GDP and $100 billion to our provincial coffers!

Instead of the premier and her experts in the energy field coldly and soberly analyzing the prospects for sale of LNG from BC plants to Asian markets, we got the fulminations of a cheerleader, the content of which made as much sense as most high school cheerleaders make. This is not what the public of British Columbia needs and indeed is not terribly helpful to the industry itself.

Today, Clark is promising only “billions of dollars” from LNG – but how many? “Billions” could technically be as few as two. She’s considerably less specific on that point today…

Palmer, in carefully researched interventions, is bringing doses of reality to badly-hyped government propaganda.

NDP opposition not much help either

Unhappily, the leader of the NDP, John Horgan is not much more helpful than Clark. In the very beginning, he anchored himself to a policy of supporting LNG – without any clear idea as to what that blanket support was going to entail. Now, instead of being able to criticize government policy, he is stuck with past pronouncements.

Leadership is not cheerleading

Leadership is not about raising unreasonable expectations or allowing those expectations to remain unchallenged. Quite the opposite. Leadership is about cool, unemotional analysis of issues and putting careful processes in place to make sure that initiatives are successful.

There is nothing the matter, of course – and, indeed, a great deal right – about government and opposition leaders supporting that which is good for the province of British Columbia. It is courageously determining whether or not it is good that is the sign of leadership.

There seems to be little any of us can do about it. So long as the Liberal Party is content to stay with Ms. Clark, she will likely stay. Dislodging a sitting leader is a daunting prospect, indeed. As the NDP have shown, it’s difficult enough to dislodge one that isn’t sitting.

Unless there is a miraculous sea change in the attitude from Mr. Horgan and his party, they are not going to provide the “government-in-waiting” that oppositions are supposed to provide. This is a most unhealthy situation.

Media matters

Once more, this all underlines the importance of a vigilant media. Mr. Palmer deserves credit for his assumption of leadership on the LNG issue. This leadership, must, however, be broadened to include the entire energy picture – and, of course, the overall issue of the environment.

This journal will continue to be ever on top of these issues, but it needs help from the mainstream media, who thus far have abdicated their responsibilities herein.

May the example of Mr. Palmer extend to others at his newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, television media and others.

Only when it does will we have a force in this province that effectively holds governments’ feet to the fire and exposes the puerile blatherings of the premier for what they are.

Rafe: Premier’s Tsilhqot’in meeting a sign of real change for BC?

September 11, 2014Canada, First Nations, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

Premier's Tsilhqot'in meeting a sign of real change for BC — Tsilhqot’in Chief Roger William and Premier Christy Clark meeting in Vancouver today (Damien Gillis

This is the story of change.

Premier Christy Clark is to be congratulated for going to the Nemiah Valley and meeting with the Tsilhqot’in First Nation leaders about their position on land claims now that they have won a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision.

It is easy to say “about time”, except that same criticism could be applied to several premiers, going back years. I believe this is the first time a BC premier could have made such a visit and that we all had to have a very big wake up call before such a commitment was possible.

Move significant for all British Columbians

There is no question that this signals quite a change in the attitude of the current government. It also, however, signals quite a change for the people of British Columbia.

I can only relate my own experience – which I have done – which was a long, slow epiphany from the attitude I started out with as a boy in British Columbia to what I have now.

They didn’t teach us this stuff in school

I grew up in a very traditional background in the 30s and 40s. I’m not going to relate now what our attitude towards “Indians” was because it would be insulting. Suffice it to say we had no understanding whatsoever of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

This is not surprising when you consider that we learned absolutely nothing about aboriginals when we went to school. That’s not quite true, we learned all sorts about aboriginal peoples in Ontario – the Algonquins, Iroquois, Huron and so on. That’s because we all used Eastern textbooks. As to the Haida, the Shuswap, or Musqueam, we were totally ignorant.

My ignorance carried on until very recent times. My observations tell me, however, that I did very little other than reflect the views of other British Columbias who were, like me, moving – at a glacial pace, perhaps – towards a better understanding of what aboriginal peoples stood for and what they meant to our overall community.

Series of legal victories changed the game

Much of the learning process came with pails of cold water from the court system. Decision after decision taught us what the Constitution of Canada plainly said but we did not believe. Many of us did not like what we originally heard.

In my own case, I can say that the light went on and I realized that it didn’t much matter what any of us might have wished the Constitution said, we had to live with it as it was. As time went on it became pretty clear to me and I’m sure to many others that we ought to be respectful of the Constitution because it was in fact right, where we had been wrong.

We simply took the land

As I thought about it, it was not rocket science. The Europeans had come to British Columbia and simply taken the land that they found, created their own land registry system – and Bob’s your uncle. That this was not satisfactory ought to of occurred to us a long time ago but didn’t. It all seemed so right. We had conquered them, hadn’t we?

In fact we hadn’t, and even if we had, modern international law does not regard conquest as the end of the matter. In any event, the laws we as Europeans had made bound us to adjust our views and recognize native title.

We have reached this point where we must adjust and we must make accommodations. We have no choice but to accept the fact we cannot do as we please with native land or disputed land. And that, in my view, is as it should be. That premier Clark has recognized this and is making moves towards establishing lines of communication is a very good thing.

Mount Polley a game-changer too

There has been another companion change which I have seen in my lifetime and it’s been a very subtle one. Not long ago, Premier Clark, after the Mount Polley disaster, flew over the lake and made the idiotic statement that she would make it pretty again.

Perhaps that wasn’t so idiotic after all because she probably touched a nerve with all of us. Impossible though it may be to change the topography of the area, we all felt the loss of the beauty concurrent with the dam disaster. Perhaps we couldn’t do anything about it and maybe it was silly to pretend we could, but we very much wanted it cleaned up and we were angry about our loss.

People starting to care

For most of my life, industry has been able to move in and tote up the value of the area in terms of timber, minerals, and so on, and the value of the beauty of the area was not part of the equation. We never thought we could quantify a beautiful mountain, lovely lake, or a gorgeous ocean shore. Those things were there, they were ours, but they were not quantifiable in terms of monetary value. As a consequence we simply accepted the fact that they would be impaired or destroyed. We didn’t like it, but we had no choice.

That has slowly but surely changed. I live in Howe Sound and the people of my area are appalled at what may happen to us if there is an LNG plant in Squamish, the trees of Gambier island destroyed or a rock quarry goes into the mouth of McNab Creek. It is not just the traditional concerns that are being expressed – it is the aesthetic values that are front and centre and being expressed in strong terms.

Companies have never understood this nor have the governments that they run. If you were to speak to somebody like the big-mouth easterner, Joe Oliver, minister of finance, who is always flapping on about how BC must accept these desecrations, you would see an indifference to such things as the beautiful mountains, lovely oceans, lakes and so on. That simply does not compute in the minds of people like Oliver, nor the prime minister. These are just not factors to be considered.

Corporations will have to face change

It is much different with the people and changing every day. While Enbridge and Kinder Morgan are stunned at the attitude of people towards their trees and rivers, they and their client governments will have to change. They will have to change because people have changed and insist that those changes they recognized.

People change – perhaps “evolve” is a better word. British Columbians have altered their views on questions of aboriginal peoples and the quantifying of our beautiful surroundings which, just as timber and minerals, have a value. Those changes are new and permanent.

The governments and industry are going to have to adjust to that.

Lead lawyer in Tsilhqot’in Williams Case presents alternate history of BC (from 2008):

Rafe: Why Bennett should resign over Mount Polley

August 20, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe- Bennett should resign over Mount Polley — In the old days of BC politics, Minister Bennett would resign, says Rafe (Youtube/Got News Network)

One day, in 1863, Mr. Byrne decided to take a stroll to get a little bit of Liverpool air. As he ambled down the street he went past Mr. Boadle’s flour factory. To his considerable surprise and horror, flying out of the window on the second floor, came a barrel of flour which fell upon Mr. Byrne, knocked him to the ground, inflicting on him grievous bodily injury.

Mr. Byrne, a tad upset by all of this, decided to sue Mr. Boadle.

When the case came to court, Mr. Boadle’s lawyers argued that there was no evidence of negligence. After all, no one had seen the barrel of flour come out of the window so how can anybody tell what in fact had happened? Mr. Byrne, said Mr. Boadle, had to prove negligence and all he could show is that somehow, God only knows how, a barrel of flour had fallen out of a window and hit him on the head. That, said Mr. Boadle, was scarcely proof of his negligence.

Somehow, the learned judges hearing the case, were not impressed with this argument.

Res ipsa loquitur

Shorn of the Latin and legalese, essentially they said, “How the hell else could this have happened?” Barrels of flour don’t usually fall out of second-story windows on people walking down the street. Mr. Byrne was given damages. (If you happen to be interested, the legal doctrine is called “res ipsa loquitur”, or in English, “the thing speaks for itself”.)

How does this relate to the Mount Polley catastrophe, you might well ask – I’m sure that was on your mind!

Well there is now considerable argument as to whether or not anybody was negligent in the breaching of that dam, if so who it was, and how could you prove it anyway? Mr. Byrne would be able to answer that question easily.

There is no need to concern oneself about who is liable here – those who own and run the dam and those who have a duty to inspect that dam and make sure that it was kept in proper repair. That is the barrel of flour in this case.

Investigation designed to fail

Somehow Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett have never read Byrne v. Boadle. They are flopping about talking about investigations – announced at an appalling press conference earlier this week.

By careful but not very clever design, the “independent” engineering inquiry from the outset exonerates Mr. Bennett’s and Ms. Polak’s ministries. When you look through the 14 recommendations, there is one that faintly suggests that the commissioners might want to look at the regulatory regime surrounding this disaster. There is no mandate to do so and it is not any more than a casual comment. Moreover, none of the commissioners have any expertise to look at this aspect of the matter.

I don’t mean this in unfairness to the commissioners – I don’t know the gentlemen, but their credentials with respect to mining seem impeccable. But to check into the regulatory obligations of ministries and whether or not they have been fulfilled requires a lawyer or a judge.

Bigger than Mount Polley

There must be, of course, a full and independent investigation. It is not simply the Mount Polley case with which we are concerned here.

There are not only countless other dams in the province but a number of other edifices which are under statutory scrutiny by the government of British Columbia and one or more of its ministries. The fact that no other dam has burst for awhile has nothing to do with it (though there have been no less than 46 “dangerous or unusual occurrences” at tailings ponds around the province from 2000-2012).

Dams don’t burst very often, the Saints be praised, but when they do, all hell breaks loose. It’s rather like tankers full of bitumen or LNG hitting something, or a pipeline bursting, isn’t it, when you think about it?

No one out for an afternoon fishing, a couple of weeks ago, would have predicted that the dam was about to burst. That’s why there are government regulations. Dams sit there for a long time without looking like they’re going to burst.

[signoff3]

Being part of the Environment or Mines ministries, in the regulations department, is rather boring work. Nothing much happens. It’s pretty easy to assume that since nothing much is happening but nothing much will.

Now, it is not the good and skillful people that work within these ministries who assume that nothing will happen. Quite the opposite, their training is to know that something will happen sometime and their job is to prevent it.

No, it’s the idiots that run the ministries and politicians whose only concern is that catastrophes happen other than when they are in charge.

That’s why Mount Polley disasters happen.

Government’s regulatory failure is key issue

What is irrelevant, at this point, is how much damage this has all cost. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s appalling to think of the consequences of this. I only say what I say because that is a separate issue which will have to be dealt with separately. As a man who’s been a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, I must say I could change my mind if I could catch the people who destroy our precious salmon and our God-given environment. That, however, as I say, it is not the point I’m going on today.

Today we must find out why our government and those who run it failed so utterly in their duty and what we must do about it. Remember, there is evidence that the ministry staff did indeed point out defects and ordered that they be corrected. There is evidence that the company simply failed to do what it was told to do.

A lack of enforcement

If that indeed happened, it means that there was a lack of enforcement. Lack of enforcement, be it fish farms, independent power projects, or dams inevitably points the finger at the politician. You cannot expect the companies to behave anything other than like companies. Their job is to make money and to explain away terrible things that happen by saying they’ll never happen again.

However, it is the bounden duty of those we elect to enforce the law.

We will never know all the answers until somebody of considerable talent and learning can stand back from this and investigate the entire matter going back to that day in 2001when industry began to get a free ride from its new friends in government led then by Gordon Campbell, now by Christy Clark.

Frankly, we’re looking at a judge. Anybody else will simply not have enough credibility with the public.

Minister should have resigned

Minister Bennett ought to have instantly resigned, not because of any personal negligence but because the time honoured rule is that if a ministry fails in its fundamental duty, it is the minister who must run up on his own sword. Unhappily, we don’t seem to pay much attention to these little rules anymore. I say unhappily, because the essence of good government is that the minister for each and every ministry is “responsible” for the actions of that ministry.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that if one of his employees did something naughty, that the minister would be responsible. It does not mean that the minister must resign any time his ministry makes a mistake. To err is human.

No, we’re talking about the failure of a ministry to do its fundamental and in this case statutory duty.

It is remarkable to me, as one who has been in the BC Cabinet, the casual attitude being betrayed by the government in general. I recognize that Mr. Bennett is losing sleep and that the Premier wants to make the lake just as pretty as it used to be and promises to do so.

There is, however, the huge question of Public Duty involved and that is simply not being addressed. Either we have a government where there is ministerial responsibility or we do not. Evidently the answer is we do not.

If we, the public, don’t take this seriously, even if it means a little serious philosophizing about what governments are supposed to do, then we will deserve to have this kind of government forever.

Rafe: Heavy oil advertising, editorials taint Canadian mag The Walrus

August 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Media, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: Heavy oil advertising, editorials taint Canadian mag The Walrus — Enbridge is a major Walrus sponsor (Photo: Damien Gillis)

I am afraid I really am a gloomy Gus today. It has just struck me that there is an absence of good guys in the world. Whether it’s big business or government they mostly do it to us and reek of self interest.

We don’t seem to have anybody we can trust anymore. There was a time when, while you couldn’t trust the newspapers, you would be able to find within the paper columnists that weren’t bought and paid for. They consistently gave you points of view that challenged you and made you think. Thank God for online papers like this one and thetyee.ca and for all of the renegades who put so much time and effort into blogging.

Whether on-line papers and bloggers have yet achieved the kind of circulation that will really move public opinion I don’t know but they are a ray of light in an otherwise bleak picture.

And then there were three

My printed purchases now are down to three.

I subscribe to the Atlantic because it does have excellent articles and entertains and make me think too. I am looking forward to the forthcoming issue where Hillary Clinton apparently criticizes the foreign policy of President Obama and has spent every waking moment since trying to explain to the president that she really didn’t mean it.

I also subscribe to the Guardian Weekly because it provides excellent columnists and great, what British refer to as leader writers.

A couple of years ago I was turned onto a Canadian publication called the Walrus. This magazine is unique in that it refuses to accept my cancellation.

Enbridge features heavily in Walrus

Normally when I read it, I just get angry at how Toronto-centric it is. It is a view of the rest of Canada from a Toronto point of view, tailored to Toronto prejudices. This last particular issue was a huge departure because it had an article on Andrew Weaver, the BC Green party MLA. It was only a page long but there was something real and truly British Columbian. It was not terribly interesting and if you lived in British Columbia not a very new story but it was about the West Coast and that, for the Walrus, is unique.

What I had hoped to get from the Walrus was controversy. I was led to believe that there would be articles on the environment and critical of things like the Tar Sands and so on. Well, the latest issue that I have, September 2014, is anything but.

The first two pages are a huge double page ad by Enbridge. Enbridge appears again with another full-page ad and also as a sponsor of various things in which the Walrus is also involved in such as lecture series (in Toronto, of course.) There is also an insert on aboriginal art, sponsored by, guess who?

I suppose you take your advertisers where you can find them and I’m sure the Enbridge people have nothing whatever to do with the content of Walrus. Well, I wonder.

Waxing poetic about the Tar Sands

One of the feature articles this month, lo and behold, is called “If We Build It, They Will Stay” by a man named John van Nostrand. Van Nostrand’s claim to expertise is that “he is an architect, an urban planner, and the founding principal of the Planning alliance in Toronto”. (Really, I’m not making this up!)

This article looks at the whole north of Canada as one belt of resources to be exploited. British Columbia is noteworthy for a large entry at Kitimat called liquefied natural gas. Next door to it in Alberta is oil, gas, and bitumen.

When you read the article, the section on the Tar Sands is almost religious in its zeal. It could have been written by the PR department of, say, Enbridge. Needless to say there is not a critical word about any of the environmental concerns many of us have about LNG and the Tar Sands.

Now, could this have anything to do with the fact that Enbridge is such a big advertiser?

Surely only a cynic would think that. Then, of course, sensing a touch of cynicism in the back of my mind, I went back over the ads in the Walrus. They have very few traditional ads. There was one from Subaru and the only other typical national ads I could find was were RBC and Rolex. Everything else are little ads inviting me, for example, to go to dinner at the Royal York Hotel or see Madame Butterfly at the Four Seasons Centre for the performing arts in Toronto.

Walrus’ charitable nature

Not wishing to be unfair, I thought I should take a look on the masthead and see if there were any mission statements and things of that sort. I thought it might also tell me a bit about who these cats are running this magazine.

Well, there was a surprise in store for me. It says the Walrus Magazine is a project of the charitable, nonprofit Walrus Foundation.

Now one’s first reaction would be, well charitable organizations have got to take their money wherever they can find it. Except that’s not usually how it works.

A magazine put out by charity is usually very careful not to get involved in controversy. It may write articles that are thought provoking in nature but they are in very careful not to take money from people who have a large axe to grind. One of the reasons for that, of course, is that they don’t want pressure put on them to make certain that their articles don’t offend the ” money” folks. Let me assure you there’s no danger of that happening here!

Now, I am going to admit this is not the world’s biggest deal. I frankly don’t give a rats ass what the Walrus publishes, whose backside it kisses or who it’s target audience is. It can, for all I care, get its money directly from the Mafia.

What I find so disappointing is that here is an opportunIty for a Canadian publication to make an honest effort to expose to Canadians, Canadian issues.

A blow job for the industry, financed by the industry

“If We Build It, They Will Stay” was a glorious opportunity to lay before for the Canadian people the whole issue of northern development particularly with regard to resources. The article stretches from the the Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador and should open up a lot of controversy, provoking a lot of intelligent conversation. It is, rather, to put it somewhat indelicately, a blow job for the resource industry in a magazine that is obviously financed by the resource industry.

What is really worrying, is that there maybe some Canadian out there that doesn’t recognize this. Of course, Enbridge is banking on this.

As I said when I started, I’m grumpy today and that’s largely because there are so few places to go where you can get information that will lead you to further information and then on to a healthy public debate.

If the Walrus does nothing else, it adds fuel to the argument that the electronic and print press in this country is captive to “big money” and in the case of the Walrus, is not even very subtle about it.

[signoff3]

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine proves Liberal “de-regulation” doesn’t work

August 7, 2014Metals and Minerals, Mining, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: Mount Polley Mine a "colossal screwup" by BC Liberal govt — Blame the BC Liberals’ lax regulations for Mount Polley Mine, says Rafe Mair (BC Liberal facebook page)

The Mount Polley Mine/Imperial Metals disaster is such that one scarcely knows where to start. Fortunately, the people of British Columbia have a writer like Stephen Hume, who in the Vancouver Sun tells chapter and verse about the failings of the Ministry of Environment’s statutory obligations to regulate.

You know, there must’ve been a date back when that all of the civic dignitaries and the executives of the company and a number of politicians had a glorious day opening the mine and telling everyone how safe it was and how the company’s record was perfect and that in the very unlikely event they missed something, why, there were always those faithful government inspectors to make sure that things were up to snuff.

Expect same (de)regulation of LNG, pipelines, tankers

This naturally got me thinking about the same things now being said about LNG plants and tankers; about Tar Sands pipelines and tankers. Same corporate public relations departments – same addle-headed politicians.

But, I can’t shake it! How come no one has to resign? This is a colossal screwup by the government of British Columbia. Is no one to blame? Whatever happened to the notion of ministerial responsibility?

[signoff3]

I suppose the answer is that when you have political lightweights like the Christy Clark government, totally unmindful of their responsibility to stand by their actions, you’re not going to have anyone even pause for a moment to think that they should pay a price. The whole question of ministerial responsibility has become less and less fashionable as the years go by, but surely there must be some point where the screwup is so bad that someone must run up on their sword.

They should have seen this coming

Lest one think that the Clark government hasn’t had the faintest idea the trouble was brewing in the inspections department, Stephen Hume tells us that the University of Victoria’s Environment Law Center reported in 2012 that environmental assessment certificates issued by government were often “vague and unenforceable”… and that by 2008, the number of mine inspections had fallen to one half what they were in 2001. The Ministry of Environment staff shrank during that time by 25% and the chief mining inspector had insufficient staff to complete the annual the monitoring reports required. And – this has to shake you – the report said:

[quote]This ramshackle enforcement regime is not good enough for an industry that can create environmental and financial catastrophes.[/quote]

Thus the Clark government knew that their enforcement system was inadequate to the task, yet when that breach of public duty spawned disaster, they pay no price!

The Campbell/Clark liberal government has been playing Russian roulette with the safety of British Colombians since it took office in 2001.

Same lax regulations applied to fish farms, IPPs

You may remember that one of the first things this government did was return all of fines levied against fish farmers for illegal practices.

Then came the “raping” of our rivers by private power concerns who were given the opportunity to bankrupt BC Hydro at the same time. These private schemes, which put up dams on the rivers which they prefer to call weirs, are under strict guidelines as to how much water they can use and when, in order to protect the fish. The trouble is that the companies have paid no attention whatsoever to these guidelines unless it suited them and the government hasn’t enforced them, nor has it demonstrated any intention to.

Thus, when you look at the failures of the Ministry of Environment as outlined by Stephen Hume, you see a systemic avoidance of enforcement going right back to the days the Liberals were elected. Yet no minister nor the government need take any responsibility for this!

“Red Tape” and other euphemisms

Enforcement rules are usually referred to by industry and their captive politicians as “red tape” and “de-regulation” or “streamlining” become buzzwords. It’s assumed that if all of these silly bureaucrats would stop trying to enforce idiotic safety regulations, we would all make lots more money. The notion perpetuated by industry is that every rule and regulation is there to stop them making money and, of course, distributing that generously amongst the less well-off in the community, and that these stupid bloody rules should all be tossed aside or ignored; that government regulation, whether it be by way of safety in a factory or a mine, or protection of fish and wildlife, are all bureaucratic nuisances set in place by “socialists” to prevent the entrepreneur from doing great things.

This is the history of these matters. When you read about the struggles of labor unions to get essential safety features into the workplace and see just how minor those reforms were and the fuss the politicians and industrialists made, you can’t believe that caring human beings with souls were involved on the corporate and government side.

Corporations have but one objective

The problem with the general public is that by and large it doesn’t understand what corporations are all about. Companies have one sole purpose: making money for their shareholders. Every penny that is taken from that undertaking is a penny misspent. This is not some sort of socialistic cynicism – it’s simply describes the beast. It has always been that way and it always will be.

Does anyone seriously think that entrepreneurs would go out of their way to voluntarily provide safety regulations and environmental protection and things of that sort that were adverse to their ability to make money? History is crystal clear on the point.

Of course, there are areas where it makes sense for companies to do the right thing by the general public. But it has to make sense on the balance sheet.

What about salmon?

Dead fish found downstream from Mount Polley tailings pond breach (Chris Lyne)

I haven’t spoken about the sockeye salmon. Here we are in a year where huge returns are expected and the Quesnel run may be destroyed. It’s too soon to know what the total impact will be but it bodes to be huge.

The sad thing here is we’re not talking about natural disasters but man-made disasters that could’ve been and often were predicted but ignored. We’re like Charlie Brown and football – we know Lucy’s going to pull it away at the last minute, but we play the game anyway and we always lose. It’s as if we don’t want to know the answers.

Just what are the dangers associated with an LNG tanker crash? What will be the consequences of a Tar Sands tanker crashing in one of our beautiful and sensitive fjords? What will be the consequences of a punctured pipeline in the rugged territory they pass through from Alberta to the BC coast?

Lessons learned

This may seem unrelated to the Imperial Metals disaster, but it actually is very apropos. It is not just the likelihood of a disaster we must concern ourselves with but the extent of that disaster. We then must decide whether or not we’re going to take adequate steps to police these undertakings or just blissfully ignore them because the public relations departments of large companies tell us there’s nothing to worry about?

The Imperial Mine disaster story has legs. We now have in front of us a snapshot of what happens when large undertakings with potentially catastrophic consequences are not policed.

This is what happens when we leave it all to the Company.

This is what happens when a right-wing government takes over and decides to go easy on big business.

This is what happens when we allow ourselves to be deluded into buzz phrases such as “we’re being ruined by red tape”.

This is what happens when we turn a blind eye to common sense and assume that because nothing has happened yet, it’s not going to happen.

The Imperial Metals disaster proves, as if proof were necessary, that no large corporation will do anymore than it has to and then it will always place money in shareholders pockets ahead of money in public safety. It proves again, as if it were necessary, that governments in the pockets of industry will pay no attention to troublesome details like public safety and the security of our Wildlife.

What now?

The real question is what do we people think or care about this. If we believe that industry knows best and that our wellbeing depends upon our accepting their terms – so be it. We can’t be heard to complain about the consequences.

If, on the other hand, there is more to life than making money for foreign companies and we do care about the safety of our people, the preservation of our environment and the wellbeing of our wildlife, then we have to make some economic sacrifices. These economic sacrifices include not just passing regulations to ensure that those who invade our environment do so safely, but enforcing those regulations and being prepared to spend the money to do that.

Heads should roll on this one, but of course they won’t. Premier Clark hasn’t the faintest idea about responsibility of cabinet ministers to back up their mistakes with resignations. We the public should learn that laissez-faire government carries with it the inevitable consequence that the rich get richer and that the public and the environment in which they live get much the poorer.

If we don’t learn these lessons from this disaster, then we get what we bloody well deserve.

Rafe: Is ‘lying’ too strong a word for Clark Libs’ LNG fibs?

July 25, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe-Clark's LNG fibs piling up — BC Premier Christy Clark addresses a conference on LNG (Damien Gillis)

I really need your help.

What the devil does one call premier Christy Clark, considering that she seems utterly incapable of telling the truth? Hers is an interesting case because her gross economy with the truth seems designed to get her away from whatever her current difficulty is, onto something different. Whether this amounts to “lying” in the accepted sense of that term, I don’t know.

“Disassembling”? “Fibbing”?

[quote]I would love to see prosperity come to my province…Unfortunately, it is just a dream.[/quote]

All BC’s eggs in LNG basket

Never mind the fact that she has no policy whatsoever with respect to pipelines and tankers – simply lofty sounding words with no meaning whatsoever. Let’s leave that aside for today and move onto something more critical, I think, because she has staked so much of her political life on it. Indeed, she has staked the wellbeing of our province on it.

I refer for you to page B7 of the Vancouver Sun for July 23 and an op-ed by Mark Jaccard, an acknowledged energy expert and Nobel laureate.

When Dr. Jaccard told his guests at an energy conference, during the 2013 provincial election, about the promises premier Clark was making with respect to LNG development in British Columbia, they broke into laughter.

God knows I am no expert on these matters but you will recall that I was laughing at her too.

It turns out that Dr. Jaccard’s audience and I were laughing at the same thing and it had nothing to do with energy science.

BC LNG business case bankrupt

My research was very simple. I read trade journals and as much editorial comment as I could find on the Internet. One thing became very clear and it did not take a brain surgeon to understand it.

For a company to invest billions of dollars In LNG plants, pipelines and tankers, a couple of basic things had to be in place.

First of all, there had to be a supply of product – that one wasn’t a problem, there was an over supply.

Secondly, there had to be the certainty of a market. That there were lots of potential “markets” around was true – the real question was whether or not these markets needed BC, considering their other alternatives. In short, there had to be firm contracts in place from which the markets could not escape. We are no closer to that today than we were during the election.

[signoff3]

The third and critical point was the price to be paid for the product. No entrepreneur is going to sink a lot of money into a project unless he knows that he is going to make a profit. That is the nature of capitalism. What seems clear to me – and also true to Dr. Jaccard’s audience – is that there is no potential market BC could depend upon at any price, let alone a certain price.

In determining future BC prosperity from natural gas, one was flying in the dark. I won’t go into the details but please read the article and you’ll see how complicated it is to predict the price of natural gas under the best of circumstances, which these are not.

The China Syndrome

One of the obvious customers for BC is China. I recall saying then that China had a great many options, not the least of which was the largest supply of gas in the world in Russia, along with a huge supply of shale gas within China itself.

One could go on analyzing markets and that’s not my bailiwick – suffice it to say that the questions raised at that time by Dr. Jaccard, his audience and by me, are no closer to being answered now that they were then.

Clark government in denial

None of this has daunted the Clark government in the slightest. They carry on as if LNG plants are going to spring up all over British Columbia and we will be awash in profits.

At this point, one might usefully go back to the election itself. Such was the enthusiasm for Ms. Clark to get elected one might say her statements about LNG were somewhat extravagant. You may recall that at the very beginning, we were told that BC, by 2017, would have all its debts paid and $100 billion in a Prosperity Fund!

Somewhere along the way, after the election was safely behind her, someone must have whispered into Premier Clark’s ear just how much money $100 billion was. It also became evident to the premier that 2017 was rather an optimistic date and that since she didn’t have to worry about an election for another four years, perhaps that might be scaled and the whole question of provincial debt best mumbled away and forgotten.

The point of this exercise is that either British Columbia is going to have a substantial LNG industry or it is not.

The next question of course is that if we are, then when?

The honest approach to this question would be, we simply do not know. A premier and a government being square with the voters would simply say that. They would point out that since “fracking” became all the rage, all bets are off as to the supply of natural gas and, indeed, oil in the world. All assumptions and estimates are now highly questionable.

The changing global energy landscape

There seems to be no question that there is a need for this new supply – but just who needs what and from whom is a huge question, which is nowhere near being settled. Old trading patterns are changing and none of the old truths can any longer be relied upon.

Moreover, there are serious political problems which will enter into the picture. For example, what does the change in world petroleum supply mean to the Middle East and the political relationships of countries with that region? Now that the United States is approaching self-sufficiency, what impact will that have in the geopolitical sense? One might think that this is irrelevant to the other questions I have raised, but not so. The natural rules of the marketplace are always trumped by considerations of world politics.

These are the facts that the public of British Columbia ought to know and understand; these are the facts that responsible, honest political leaders bring to the attention of voters.

To have taken the very best possibilities arising out of this new petroleum situation in the world and paint them as if the inevitable answer was fabulous prosperity for BC is as irresponsible a piece of political chicanery as I, in a long life, have ever seen. Moreover, the child-like deception continues, day after day.

Like every other British Columbian, I would love to see prosperity come to my province. To be able to all live better and to have our social ills dealt with in a more thorough and humane manner is a lovely dream to have. Unfortunately, it is just a dream.

Where does NDP opposition stand?

As of this writing, the NDP leader, John Horgan, has re-shuffled his shadow cabinet with energy split amongst several critics. Since the last election, the NDP have been a great disappointment in their effort to be the loyal opposition. They have not held the government’s feet to the fire – rather, they have been busy infighting and sorting out their internal disorder. Let’s hope that this has now changed.

It is by no means too late. I don’t give a damn whether or not the NDP is socialist or what it might be in its official political philosophy. Those sorts of terms are long out of date and useful only as political rhetoric during an election. Most political parties now are in the center of the road and appealing to people in all walks of life. I do not fear that the NDP would suddenly be nationalizing our businesses or bringing in secret police to enforce their version of humane practices.

What the NDP must present to the people of British Columbia is an honest appraisal of what the issues are and where we stand.

The current Christy Clark government is incapable of telling the truth, if to do so would in any way impair their popularity. One does not expect them to be paragons of political integrity – God knows they’re a long way from that. But on such an important matter as our natural gas industry, the truth is essential if the public is to understand our fiscal future.

The Christy Clark government’s position on LNG is, as Dr. Jaccard and his audience indicated, funny as hell.

Unfortunately, it is also tragic.

$Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word$

Rafe: With fracking, tankers “world-class safety” is a weasel word

July 19, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word — BC Premier Christy Clark touts “world-class” safety for fossil fuel projects (Canadian Press)

Many times I have referred to Premier Clark’s demand that Enbridge and others have “world-class” cleanup processes in place. To repeat myself, these are “weasel words” and mean absolutely nothing. “World-class” firefighting procedures doesn’t mean the building didn’t burn down.

I was delighted to read Stephen Hume’s column in the Vancouver Sun of July 17, where he talks about “weasel words”, especially the term “world-class”, and other matters. This particular article is about fracking and in his surgical way, Hume carves up the government for it’s utter lack of process and covering each and every one of their tracks by use of the words “world class”.

Government naively accepts industry’s word on safety

We have seen a similar absence of investigation by the Clark government into the risks of LNG, be it in pipelines, plants, or tankers. This government is now known for two things: an utter lack of preparation and lying through their teeth.

British Columbia under Christy Clark is brought to the position where we are to have pipelines and oil tankers; LNG plants, pipelines, and tankers; and fracking for natural gas, without any idea as to the safety of these projects. Premier Clark and her cabinet lickspittles simply take the company’s word that what they plan is environmentally benign.

Companies lie by their very nature. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on public relations every year. One only has to look at the ads from Enbridge over the last year or so to see the kind of money they spend and the sort of message that they put out.

Many British Columbians accept the need for oil pipelines, LNG, and fracking and the tanker traffic associated with them and I must ask my fellow citizens upon what do you base your support? Do you have some information about the safety of these projects that we don’t? If so, would you be so kind as to vouchsafe it to the rest of us so that we can, perhaps, change our minds?

British Columbians face onslaught of projects

A couple of years ago, in a speech, I observed that the attacks on the environment of British Columbia were so many, so varied, and so widespread that it would be difficult for us to deal with them just because of their sheer volume. Unfortunately this has manifestly been proved true.

[signoff3]

Citizens of a democracy, faced with this sort of an onslaught, have a right to expect that their government will stand at the gate and not let anybody by who is going to do harm. We are entitled to believe that our government will investigate each and every potential environmental assault and advise us of what dangers we face.

We expect governments to give a full accounting on the danger of oil spills from pipelines and tanker accidents; we expect a full investigation by the government of safety factors as well as the environmental concerns around LNG plants, pipelines and tankers; we expect our government to make a thorough investigation of fracking before the first undertaking starts. On that latter point, fracking is going ahead full blast and the government hasn’t lifted a finger to deal with its safety or environmental concerns – like massive climate impacts and water contamination, as recent, reputable studies reveal.

Public can’t rely on government

We, who pride ourselves on being environmentalists, must do extensive investigations on our own to learn the facts. There is absolutely no point in going to government departments to find out what they know because they know nothing. It is idle to go to the companies involved because they are incapable of telling the truth.

This is the extent of democracy under the Christy Clark government.

NDP ‘opposition’ not much better

One would like to think that the NDP, her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, would be different.

Unfortunately, the leader of the NDP seems to favour LNG. He is thinking about fracking. He is also, apparently, confused about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and on this critical issue, the Party Policy falls all over its own feet.

British Columbians left on their own

It is the totality of tanker traffic carrying diluted bitumen (dilbit) and LNG which has not been assessed by the government and doesn’t seem to be bothering the opposition – yet this is a massive issue.

We are left in British Columbia on our own. Those people to whom we pay a great deal of money to manage our affairs are in thrall to big industry, which finances the Liberal Party and supports it politically. It, like the government, is hugely economical with the truth. We citizens must then inform ourselves.

As I see it, we have only one political option. I am, God knows, no socialist. I ran against the NDP twice and beat them twice. I stood against them in the legislature. My last two votes in provincial elections have been for the Greens.

Having said that, the Greens are not going to win the next election and the NDP do have a chance.

What the NDP must do to regain public’s support

If the NDP are to win they have to increase their support substantially.

If the NDP do increase their support by candidly, fully and fairly looking at environmental matters and reporting to us faithfully as to their findings and encourage the fullest debates, I not only think they have a chance to win, but would be an acceptable government to have.

One thing that I must say in conclusion – I cannot believe that my fellow citizens would be insane enough to support Christy Clark and her bunch once again.

If that happens, we deserve what we get, even though our kids sure as hell don’t.

Rafe: First Nations, Constitution are Canadians’ best defence

July 10, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

First Nations, Constitution are Canadians' best defence — Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

Big money now rules the world. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed. No government in the world is doing anything about this – least of all the Conservative government in Canada.

The only people fighting this, and for their own reasons, are First Nations. We all do things for our own selfish reasons so that was not meant to be a criticism, but simply a statement of fact.

It is time we looked at the reality of the Roger Williams case in light of the fight against big business and see how it plays out. The best places to look are at the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

‘Compelling and Substantive’

In light of the Williams case, they both face the same problem. Each of them must now consult with the appropriate First Nations. They may well consider that since they have been turned down they have already consulted with them to but my advice under the Williams case is to do it again and get turned down again.

They will then have to convince the crown, in this case the federal government, that their project is “compelling and a substantive” and consistent with the crown’s fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples.

I, frankly, think that it would be enormously difficult for a government to make that decision under any circumstances I can imagine. If nothing else, the political ramifications across Canada, with every First Nation, would be enormous. For a First Nation anywhere in the country to learn that one of their brethren, in trying to protect the environment of its land, was forcibly frustrated by the government would be a huge blow and would spread throughout the aboriginal community, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

Pipeline approvals will trigger lawsuits

Let us suppose for sake of argument that the crown, whether provincial or federal, does make such a decision. There would be, immediately, a lawsuit. Going on the past, a lawsuit would take five years , minimum, to resolve. Without any doubt it would go to the Supreme Court of Canada and from the company’s point of view, they would realize that the aboriginals have the longest winning streak in history in that court.

The main point is that no matter what, Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan have got a very long time to wait before they get the final decision in their favour, if they ever do.

Let us suppose they did get that final and for them favourable decision. This would not end the matter because in my view the public of British Columbia would still raise hell and there would be civil disobedience.

In short, I think that the Williams case spells paid to the two pipelines in question.

Exclusive use

There is another interesting feature arising out of the Williams case. A reader of my column in The Tyee points out that the Chief Justice talked about “exclusive use” of the land in question. What if two nations shared land by way of an understanding, tacit or otherwise? Would they not be able to claim that they should to share ownership of that land now because the two of them had had exclusive use?

I suppose the real point I’m making is that there are plenty of legal questions left and I can only wish that I had just graduated from Law School aged 24 instead of having done so in 1956!

First Nations stand best chance of protecting BC

As I have said elsewhere, I by no means think that the Williams case adversely affects development in British Columbia. It changes the rules and it changes who gets the money but First Nations want development too. They are, I might happily add, much more concerned about environmental matters than large international developers or governments. They are concerned about values like caribou, fish, and trees. They, in short, care about the sort of things that many other British Columbians are also concerned about but can’t get their governments to give a damn about.

First Nations know, as we all should know, that “dilbit”, which is the oil that would be transported by these pipelines, is lethal stuff. One need only look at the Kalamazoo River to see what happens when Bitumen, or dilbit, spills. As long as human beings are involved, we will have spills. Many, if not most, of these spills will be in virtually inaccessible places. We know from Kalamazoo that even if they spill is accessed, there is very little the company can do about it.

Living so close to the land and the oceans as First Nations do, they are keenly aware of these facts. Large international companies, and their client governments, don’t give a damn about these things – never have and never will.

The bottom line is that in the great war against marauding capital there is only one “Peter at the dike” and that’s our aboriginal community, as supported by the Canadian Constitution.

[signoff3]

Rafe: Time Canadians get used to Tsilhqot’in case, Aboriginal title

June 30, 2014First NationsfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe Mair-Tsilhqot'in decision shows Aboriginal title is real — Chief Roger Williams (left) at the the Supreme Court of Canada (Photo: Pei-Ju Wang)

The Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s Roger Williams case victory settles the question once and for all: there is aboriginal title, it is effective, and it can be enforced by aboriginal peoples.

This is a long way from where the law was 25 years ago and for many people that will take some getting used to. No doubt there will be gnashing of teeth and suggestions that perhaps Parliament should change this. Forget it – get used to it – Parliament has no such power as this was a Supreme Court of Canada interpretation of Canada’s Constitution. The only way it can be changed is by a constitutional change and that simply is not going to happen.

There are unanswered questions, of course. What about other aboriginal claims than the ones ruled upon here?

[quote]Canadians are going to have to adjust their attitudes. This is now the law, not some speculative, temporary rule.[/quote]

Decision makes it easier to assert aboriginal title

Each of those of course stands on its own merits. What this case does, however, is make it much easier for aboriginal communities to prove that they are entitled to the land. No longer must they show continuous habitation from ancient times – the fact that they can show a usage going back a reasonable period of time is enough. There will be arguments, of course, but I think one can understand, finally, that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to tend its judgments towards First Nations.

The question, of course, is what will this mean to development in British Columbia. Does this mean that hereafter we become a barren land where no development takes place?

The answer is, of course, no. Aboriginal peoples are going to favour development in certain areas, consistent with their laws and customs. There will continue to be logging, mining, etc., but it will be on entirely new terms. It also will be far more environmentally sensitive.

Enbridge, Kinder Morgan face uphill battle

What this is going to mean, of course, Is the laws of the province and federal government will change, as will be the procedures of business. It is no longer a question of consultation which implies that once that takes place, one can go ahead with what one planned. Now the operative word is “consent” – a very different thing indeed.

There will be something of immediate consequence, of course. In my opinion the Northern Gateway project is as dead as a door nail. There are numerous unceded First Nations territories in question and especially to be noted are those on the coast near Kitimat. Without any doubt, some of these nations will nix the project.

It would be merciful to all concerned if both the Northern Gateway and the Kinder Morgan projects were terminated now.

First Nations could block LNG

There are other projects which are in jeopardy. Much of the proposed infrastructure for liquefied natural gas (LNG) would fall on First Nations territories and will be subject to their veto. It seems to me that the BC government would be very wise to canvas this situation now, rather than wait and have them done individually as they come up. While some nations have embraced LNG, others are already voicing serious concerns.

[signoff3]

This could be a very substantial blow to Premier Clark’s plans to make us all rich by LNG. No doubt some of them will be approved, but not all. How wise it would be to sort this out now rather than wait, pretending everything will be OK?

Fear of aboriginal title unfounded

Many of the fears of those who worry about these things are unjustified. From the outset, First Nations have excepted private property from their claims. They have generally made no claim that cities and other settlements within their boundaries should all of a sudden belong to them. The city of Vancouver, for example, covered with aboriginal claims can rest easy at night in the knowledge that their homes and buildings are not going to be torn down and taken away.

In fact, when one looks back at this whole process of some 20 or 30 years, the reasonableness of First Nations in this regard stands out. One is so used to confrontations where everything in the world is demanded in hopes that there be some settlement at the halfway point that the fact that the First Nations have respected the private property of other British Colombians is to be noted.

What does Williams case mean for future?

I arrive back to conclusions about the Williams case.

British Columbians specifically and Canadians in general are going to have to adjust their attitudes. This is now the law, not some speculative, temporary rule. There will be no going back. In fact, there is a great deal of work yet to be done and some of this will be uncomfortable.

There is a power in the Crown, if a project is compelling and substantive, to interfere if to do so is consistent with its fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples. I take this to be almost meaningless. It is not a duty to consult, etc., but a power to completely change a decision by a First Nation.

I cannot see any government using this clause – if only for political reasons. It is there as a safeguard but in my view is all but unenforceable. Its only use I can see is as a threat in extraordinary circumstances.

For First Nations, this has been a long struggle, going back perhaps 200 years or more. The issue was not settled by conquest, if only because no conquest existed. Even then, lands conquered are not ordained by God to stay that way. Obviously, there were no treaties involved. The Europeans simply came in and took the land.

It’s under those circumstances congratulations are due First Nations and the rest of the community must simply resolve to make the best of the situation.

In my view, life will go on.