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.

Photo: Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press

Why Justin Trudeau May be Better for BC than his Father Ever Was

Share

I’ve been in and watching politics for a few years now and have seen a lot of politicians come and go.

As a child I remember my parents always chiding Mackenzie King for his weirdness, yet always voting for him.

Back then I was a precocious little bastard and loved politics and remember how my parents and the rest of the Vancouver “establishment” demonized the CCF, forerunners to the NDP. The foreman in my Dad’s paper box plant was, so Dad confided in me, a CCFer, and I saw Charlie Knowles as a rather benign, kindly person who somehow presented a serious threat to our way of life.

The first charismatic leader I can remember was John Diefenbaker, who won an upset minority government in 1957, then achieved a huge majority in the Spring of 1958. To demonstrate my perversity, I voted Liberal in 1957 when the big swing to the Tories was happening and when it seemed that no one was voting Tory, I still voted Liberal.

I distrusted the Tories because they had always been perceived (correctly in my view) as haters of French Canadians, as we then called them, and cozy friends of the manufacturers of Ontario.

This brings me to 1968 and closing in on what I really want to say today.

In 1968 I was caught up in Trudeaumania which was sweeping the country.

I thought that Trudeau had a better grasp of what the country was all about, not only in Quebec, but here in the “west beyond the west”, in the words of historian/author Jean Barman. I was sure wrong on the latter count, because whether it was his failed marriage to a BC woman or just bloodymindedness, Trudeau showed his contempt for our province, best exemplified when he refused to speak to a crowd in Salmon Arm and literally gave the crowd the finger.

In the late 70s and early 80s I saw him through the constitutional lens and saw a man who didn’t want a Canadian consensus at all but was “my way or the highway”.

What I did see, I must grudgingly admit, was a man who saw clearly that if he could win in Quebec and Ontario, the rest of Canada could like it or lump it.

In my 30+ years in politics and broadcasting I learned that all federal governments, at best, were indifferent to the needs and ambitions of my province, which they simply lumped into one region which they called “the West”. And, yes, if I must make a confession one more time, I consider myself a British Columbian before a Canadian and that if I had been in the Legislature in 1871 I would have voted no on joining Canada, with which we had no physical connection and never to this day a full political one.

OK, folks, that gets me to today and a budding charismatic politician, Justin Trudeau. I support him but not out of some yearning for a clone of his old man – God knows we don’t need that! I support him because he has a background in BC, having lived here and taught here as well as spending vacation time here. His mother, Margaret, is a native British Columbian. Whether or not the death of his brother here is in the equation, I can’t say.

Here, however, is my basic point.

British Columbia is under merciless and massive corporate/political attack which, if not stopped, will change this province much for the worse. To now think that a prime minister Justin Trudeau will change that may be wishful thinking but we’re really like the man falling from a great height, flapping his arms in a move he knows won’t help him but it sure as hell isn’t going to make matters worse.

Justin Trudeau has condemned the Enbridge pipeline in clear terms, putting a clear issue into the mix. He couldn’t have done this as a throwaway line – at least I don’t think he could have – which means the two opposition parties come together on this issue. Admittedly Tom Mulcair has not been quite as forthcoming as I would like but Trudeau understands that in the new Canadian political game BC will be important. Prime Minister Harper has made the game into a clear division – into “me or them”  – and while both opposition party leaders will want to stake out their own positions, it won’t be by supporting any major Harper policy.

It is, I confess, a thin reed indeed, but with all the delays that we can create, it just might be that Trudeau represents a chance to save our lovely province in its struggle to save ourselves from the destruction of what we hold so dear – our heritage, and, dare I say it, our very soul?

Share
Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford (Larry MacDougal/CP photo)

Rafe on Clark’s Embarassing Antics in Alberta and Renewed Calls for Wolf Culls

Share

Today is a twofer – two for the price of one.

First, I’m beginning to feel sorry for Premier Christy Clark. She is a very nice person, personable and able to speak. What she is not capable of doing is speaking sensibly or making decisions that make sense.

It seems obvious to me that she is getting wretched advice and nowhere is this more evident than on the pipeline issue.

Let me illustrate.

The Premier, some months ago, laid down some rules that would govern her government’s environmental response to pipelines and added that to a demand for money from Premier Alison Redford of Alberta. The conditions were silly motherhood stuff and didn’t contain the one most British Columbians want – public hearings that would let people say whether or not they want these pipelines in the first place. This is, I daresay, a foreign concept to the Liberal government but the public know they are not able to express their opinions on the wisdom of the projects in the first place.

In fact, Premier Clark has avoided that issue like the plague.

She missed the very important Western Premier’s Conference on the lame excuse she needed to be in the House because the pipelines and tanker issues were on the agenda and she would have to make known her position.

Then she missed all the deadlines to get BC status as an intervenor as have Alberta, municipalities and First Nations. Consequently, a short time ago she was rebuffed for trying to intervene.

Reviews like the Enbridge Joint Panel Review – and the Cohen Commission as an example – realize that some entities have a greater issue to deal with than Joe Citizen and grant them the status to call witnesses, cross-examine government and industry witnesses and that sort of thing. This could not possibly be a mistake, but a deliberate decision. I don’t have much use for environmental hearings but at least British Columbians could hear what the evidence is. This was an egregious error obviously designed to let Ms. Clark act like the three monkeys.

Now she has horned her way into Premier Redford’s office to press BC’s case. Here is the part that tells you the abysmal ignorance from which Ms. Clark operates.

She is quoted thusly: “There is no amount of money that can make up for an unacceptable risk when it comes to our oceans, our coast and our land.”

Noble sentiments to be sure, but since Premier Redford supports the pipelines and tanker traffic and is content to have the federal government cram them past BC opposition – and bearing in mind that Premier Redford has made it clear that Alberta won’t give BC a nickel – the only purpose for Ms. Clark to crash Ms. Redford’s office is to make it appear to folks at home that she’s doing something.

She is making a fool of all of us, painting us as supplicants to Premier Redford’s throne and the gold that is there.

This must be borne in mind: the oil revenues from the tar sands belong to Alberta under the constitution. If she were to take some of that money and give it to BC, not only would she be a damned fool – Alberta voters would eat her alive.

Premier Clark’s bleating about “risks to BC” is bullshit as she and the rest of us know. Even Enbridge admits that the chances of a spill are overwhelming. Clark is playing us for fools. it is egregious, disingenuous nonsense rivaled only by Bill Clinton’s assertion that, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

Still Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf

On another note, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Back in 1979, the Ministry of Environment was poisoning wolves in northern BC because, allegedly, they were killing cattle. There wasn’t a particle of evidence that this was happening, certainly not on a large scale. Within days of becoming minister I put a stop to the program, hired a man – an elderly fishing buddy of mine whom I trusted implicitly – to go through the area getting evidence, if there was any, of packs of wolves destroying cattle. Sandy was one if these guys who could find out things without anyone realizing he was asking questions.

He reported back to me that he could find no evidence of a major problem .

He told me of the case of a wolf pack driving a herd of cattle onto a frozen lake which caved in from the weight and the wolves devoured them. Interesting that wolves could kill cattle in the water and feast upon them without drowning themselves.

The interesting part is that three different ranchers in three different areas told the same story!

Despite all their bleating, ranchers couldn’t offer any evidence whatsoever.

The ranchers were claiming their losses were due to wolves to cover up their own bad husbandry.

It’s interesting to ask what the hell were all those cattle doing out on the range in temperatures that would freeze a lake?

A Socred back bencher, Cyril Shelford, and his seemingly unlimited number of brothers organized a huge rally and dared me to show my face.

I did – not through bravery but because Premier Bill Bennett would likely have fired me if I didn’t appear.

It was a very ugly meeting and I admit I was scared. When I was finally permitted to speak I said, “this is the first time in history where a man has been run into town on a rail.”

The humour of the remark escaped the 500 incensed ranchers.

The moratorium I imposed remains. Now the ranchers have popped up with claims that seem, after 33 years, to have suddenly re-appeared. Once again, the ranchers, by their own admission, are utterly unable to supply one scintilla of evidence.

The Minister of Environment should politely give the ranchers the international words for “go away”.

Share

Truth and Competency Still Escape Clark Govt on Enbridge File

Share

The joke used to be, “How can you tell when a lawyer isn’t telling the truth? The answer is when you see his lips move”. Now substitute politician and you’ve got it right.

Premier Clark will just happen to be in Edmonton next week and hopes that the Alberta Premier would like to have a bit of a chat with her about pipelines.

At the same time Terry Lake, Minister of Environment, tells us that the only consideration he has re: the Enbridge project will be the environment – from which one must infer he means the idiotic standards laid down some months ago by his boss.

The question is, Madam Premier, what more do you need to know?

Leaving aside the tanker traffic for a moment, last week Enbridge was angered at the suggestion that over the next 50 years there was a 93% chance of a spill and told us that it was “only” 70%!

Are we not all relieved at this news? “Only” 70%!

What isn’t ever mentioned is what damage these spills will cause.

I use the example of the revolver with 100 chambers and just one bullet. In making the decision as to whether or not you put the gun to your head you would calculate the odds at 99-1. But that’s only half the story, for if the revolver only had marshmallow in the chamber, you wouldn’t give a damn about the odds.

But, Madam Clark – these pipelines don’t carry marshmallow but a deadly poison!

But it’s even more than that, Premier – when these spills occur, how will the company get to the spill with heavy equipment? You commented on Enbridge’s handling of the Kalamazoo spill and called it a “disgrace”. And it was, but, Ms. Clark, this spill occurred in a populous state and was easily accessible.

Mr. Lake talks about the environment being the only consideration. Again, what is there that leaves any doubt about the horrendous consequences resulting from an oil spill?

Why doesn’t the minister tell us about all the investigations his ministry has done?

Surely he’s done a great deal, bearing in mind that looking after water is his responsibility. Has he assessed even superficially the 1,000 rivers and streams that will be impacted by an Enbridge pipeline?

My guess is that he has been told to cool it because Ms. Clark entered a deal with the feds that its Joint Review Panel should be considered as binding in BC as well.

Let’s end with a bit of a truth telling exercise. The truth of this horrendous environmental disaster is that the Liberal government did agree to accept the Joint Review Panel’s findings and thus surrendered its environmental jurisdiction to Ottawa.

To make matters worse, BC did not become part of the the Joint Review Panel by becoming a government intervenor as did First Nations – which would have given our province (the province most impacted) “standing” so that they could call witnesses, cross examine witnesses and make a formal argument. The province has no more rights than a private citizen.

Now Premier Clark tries to recapture a piece of the pie by trying to make Alberta’s premier Alison Redford into the bad guy in the picture.

Lest this may have missed our premier’s notice, Ms. Redford also depends upon citizen approval in order to get elected and one must assume that her citizens would cry out like stuck pigs if she gave away money that she didn’t have to.

BC then is in a dunghill of their own making and it could only happen by a huge cock-up by a government that has become an expert in that field.

Share
Chad Hipolito/THE CANADIAN PRESS photo

Rafe challenges Christy to a debate

Share

I have, for Premier Clark, an offer she can’t possibly turn down.

She refuses to call the Legislature into session because it will only make pundits and politicians (presumably she means those in the opposition) happy. In her view it’s better for the great unwashed if she goes on the road, from time to time, finding out what voters want – I wonder if “your resignation” is an answer she’ll pay any attention to.

It must be observed that the only functions of the Legislature are to pass, at its behest, Government bills and to hold their feet to the fire. It is an unpleasant place for the government because there are people there who can and do ask very embarrassing questions. Moreover, even the tame media are likely to print the questions and answers so that the public can be in the know. As to the uselessness of the system, I refer you to my article in the September 3 edition of  The Tyee, entitled “Martyn Brown’s Tepid Remedy”.

I call the Premier’s utterings – and there is no other word for it – bullshit. She has a much greater obligation than just politicking at government packed meetings and it is to face the public as represented by the media.

Strange isn’t it? When Ms. Clark ducked the Western Premiers‘ Conference (a very important conference I can tell you from personal experience) she said that her obligation was to be in the “House”, not at a conference of western colleagues who had the Enbridge pipeline on the agenda, upon which matter Premier Clark would be forced to comment. Now that we’re in a candid mood, she didn’t have the guts to do it and scampered home to the legislature as a way out.

Now that she has an obligation to place her legislation and policy before an unpleasant opposition and press, she has a greater obligation to miss it and, one guesses, at taxpayers’ expense, make political speeches before safe audiences.

I have this proposition, Madame Premier.

 I am not a politician any more than you are a talk show host. We’ve each moved on. And I can assure you that as I approach my 81st birthday, I have no intentions of returning, even though if I were elected I would be entitled to the pension I gave up when I left government in 1981. (By way of explanation, one needed to be elected three times. Moreover, if elected again, I would have to repay what was returned to me, but believe me, I would do that in a flash.)  

I am not a pundit, by which I assume you mean part of the working media.

Madam Premier, surely even the Liberal Party now must admit that the Environment is the #1 issue in BC. I propose that you and I debate the Environment around the Province so that you can tell everyone what your policy is on Fish farms, highways through agricultural land, private power schemes on our rivers, pipelines (Enbridge and Kinder Morgan come to mind) and tankers on our coast carrying bitumen from the Oil Sands to China and waypoints.

Now, to be fair to you, I’ll debate any other issues that you wish, although I will be at a great disadvantage and undoubtedly be quickly overcome because you are, of  course, the premier and will be much better informed.

I don’t care who chairs these meetings – having been to many private river hearings I know what biased chairpersons are like and though, again, a biased chair will be to your advantage, I’ll take my chances and will do my best to hold my end up.

I will be pleased to pay my way – hotel, vittles, spirits and transport.

If you use these meetings as fundraisers I only ask that The Common Sense Canadian be permitted to pass the hat to cover my expenses.

Madam Premier – I really don’t like to call people in high paces cowards, gutless and words like that which spring to my mind and, I must tell you, to an ever growing BC public when your name is mentioned.

What an opportunity to silence your critics! What a great way to show that you really are an environmentalist who puts the will of the people ahead of large corporations!

Surely you have nothing to lose whereas The Common Sense Canadian puts its entire raison d’être, its very existence on the line.

Name the dates and the locations and I’ll be there.

Let’s do it! 

Share

Rafe: ‘I Support Captain Paul Watson’

Share

I see that all civilization and some uncivilizations, like the USA, want Paul Watson’s hide.

Just so there’s no doubt, I’ve known and supported Paul for over 30 years and for many years have been on the Sea Shepherd Society’s Board of Advisors. I have supported him all that time because, in my view, he’s doing what is necessary for want of any government involvement.

One of my first interviews with Paul came in 1981 when Paul and the Sea Shepherd crew had gone ashore on Kamchatka in the then Soviet Union and destroyed a mink farm that fed the animals whale meat. He did the interview on board using the “over and out” system while being pursued by the Soviet Navy and buzzed by the Soviet Air Forces – listening to Paul you could have thought he was just having a bit of a sail out on the bounding main!

Paul Watson is the most fearless man I’ve ever known.

Paul was a founder of Greenpeace and was fired because he was too much of an activist. His fellow founder, Patrick Moore, decided he liked money better than principles, so he prostituted himself to industry like fish farms and that in the Tar Sands, becoming a rich man selling their filth.

He plays on an inconsequential PhD, using the Doctor to imply that he somehow knows what he’s talking about.

A few years ago Moore was contracted to bring his hypocrisy to a cruise ship en route to Alaska. Paul, who had offered to debate him on his dog and pony show many times announced that he would be aboard to attend his lectures and speak from the floor. Moore instantly backed out of his contract with the interesting excuse that his wife’s birthday came up during the cruise.

Evidently, Mrs. Moore wasn’t delighted with a lovely cruise for their anniversary or suddenly discovered that she was prone to sea-sickness.

There is another reason one might conclude – Patrick Moore is a coward, the conclusion I came to knowing both of them as I do.

Patrick Moore has become rich doing PR work and consulting on how to bamboozle the masses for the Tar Sands, nuclear energy, fish farms and, I must conclude, private power desecrating our rivers, bitumen pipelines and tankers.

Moore hates Paul’s guts which is another big reason for supporting Captain Watson.

Paul is a preservationist who does that which countries refuse to do – enforce the law or, in some cases, simply to not be afraid to pass decent laws for protecting the environment in the first place.

Watson has been called an eco terrorist because he prevents the Japanese from whaling in the South Pacific because they say they need whales for “scientific research”. How the hell can a man who fights this kind of bullshit be called an eco terrorist?!

The people of the Faroe Islands had, until Watson arrived on the scene, a nifty little custom of slaughtering pilot whales once a year – not for food or any other reasons but just for the hell of it. With Watson away this year, they brutally killed 467 whales. On the back of a banknote the Faroe Islands show a pilot whale being hacked to death.

I’ve been to the Faroe Islands and can tell you that the Faroese are a prosperous people who make no defense of their whaling other than it’s a custom.

Paul Watson is an eco terrorist for stopping this practice?

We slaughter seal pups not because we have to but to supply fur coats to wealthy European women, Paul and many of his crew were sent to the slammer for simply taking pictures.

The list goes on and Paul Watson inches closer and closer to doing time in jail, which I predict will happen later this year when he comes ashore. His own country, instead of giving him an Order of Canada, which he deserves many times over, will throw him in jail.

I support Captain Paul Watson and believe all Canadians should.

Share

Farewell to Peter Lougheed – A Real Common Sense Canadian

Share

If you skipped A20 of Friday’s Province or B3 of the Sun, you would not know that Former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed had died. Such are priorities of Postmedia.

I first met him at a Western Premier’s Conference, in 1976, at dinner. It was not one of my better moments. Bll Bennett cracked a one-liner just as I was taking a drink of wine and, as has happened to all of us with milk when we were kids, I shot the wine out of my nostrils all over the tablecloth. Bennett quickly said, “You can dress up these Kamloops guys but it doesn’t do any good.”

As minister responsible for constitutional affairs, I sat in too many conferences to count with Lougheed, present and a big force.

One amusing moment occurred at the Western Ministers Conference in Prince George, in 1979, I think it was.

During an intervention by Manitoba Premier Sterling Lyon he said, “As the Duke of Marlborough said, ‘publish and be damned.'” As is often my wont, I blurted out, “it was the Duke of Wellington.” This lese majesty brought silence for a second or so, then Premier Bennett said, “Some ministers can be replaced.” Hereupon Lougheed said, “Bill, I’ll trade you three of mine for Rafe.” Calm was restored!

Peter Lougheed was known as a stout defender of Alberta’s sole right to its natural resources. This, perhaps one might say obstinance, had deep historical significance.

Alberta had not come into Confederation as a political entity as had all the others, but by a federal division of federal crown land in 1905 that created Saskatchewan and Alberta. They did not, then, have control over their natural resources until they were ceded to them in 1930. After that, it was part of the Alberta psyche to demonstrate that control at every appropriate moment. At every First Minister’s Conference dealing with the patriation of the Constitution, Loughheed would make it plain that any attempt, however slight, to deal with Alberta’s resources would mean Alberta opposition.

Lougheed had reason to suspect the feds as evidenced by Pierre Trudeau’s Energy Program of 1980, where the feds did clearly interfere with Alberta (and BC) natural resources. Premier Lougheed responded by cutting back oil production. This head to head confrontation continued until 1984 when Prime Minister Mulroney repealed the program. It was the time Albertans had bumper stickers reading “Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark.”

It was a more progressive development of the Tar Sands that happened on Lougheed’s watch. What a pity his policy wasn’t continued, for he stood squarely for this project to be developed by Canadian refineries to be used for Canadian needs. Had his policies been followed, there would be no discussion of pipelines in BC nor tankers on our coast. Lougheed argued this point to his last days, calling for local refineries – and moderation in developing the resource.

It was he who created the “rainy day” fund putting oil revenues away for moment when the revenues weren’t there and Albertans would need some extra money.

British Columbia scarcely agreed with Lougheed – especially on constitutional issues – but always respected him and listened.

Peter Lougheed demonstrated his ongoing influence in the recent Alberta election when with a week to go, he endorsed Premier Alison Redford. This move was the kiss of death for the Wildrose Party.

The word “great” is much abused and misused but it belongs properly on Peter Lougheed  – he was truly a great  Albertan, great Canadian and great man. I feel highly privileged to have known him and witnessed his contributions to his province and his country.

Share
Executives from Teck Resources pose with former BC Finance Minister Colin Hansen at a gala celebrating their company's $12.5 million donation to the Vancouver Aquarium, The Same company recently admitted to knowlingly polluting the Columbia River for decades. (Aquablog photo)

Rafe on ‘Corporate Citizenship’ and Changing Views

Share

Sometimes a good dose of introspection is good for the soul…and as a test of whatever principles you now espouse.

I’m always amused when someone accuses me me of “inconsistency”, which reminds me of Emerson’s aphorism, “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.

It remains, obviously, to decide if my changes in position are foolish.

I admit to being a contrarian. Seeing that, and recognizing that it might be an interesting experiment, Premier Bill Bennett made me Environment Minister in 1978. It was only a year as I was moved up to Health the next shuffle but that time gave me much pause for reflection and I became convinced that Industry would only care about the environment  if they were forced to or if, somehow, it made them money. As my associate Damien Gillis often points out, if corporations did things that prevented them from paying dividends or putting the bottom line first, it was tantamount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

This is true. The only thing a company is supposed to do is make a profit.

Companies often take pride in employing people as if that was an act of good citizenship, not for the purposes of profiting from employees’ labours.There is, of course, nothing wrong with companies employing people – what’s wrong is the notion that they do this out of some charitable gesture, motivated by altruistic philosophy.

They take pride in spending philanthropically although, as Jimmy Pattison has shown around the province, that is seldom done anonymously. Moreover donations are tax deductible.

Often the donation interferes with the plans in place – let me explain.

Say a company wants to place an MRI scanner in a certain hospital. The Health Ministry will have a schedule for placing these machines and the corporation’s choice is not at the top of the list. The donation now, in effect, deprives another hospital of the MRI it had reason to expect was theirs. Now, if the corporation were to say, “I understand that hospital X is in line for an MRI, I will build it for them,” that would be quite a different thing.

There’s another important factor – MRI’s cost a fortune to run. If the corporation stays in the lineup, the government will have made provision for the cost. When it jumps the queue, the Health budget is distorted.

I have nothing but praise for philanthropy when it is done in cooperation with the targeted donee and the donor is not seeking to gain business from the publicity and is not seeking a tax break.

My only point is that one makes a serious mistake in thinking that donations from corporations are not intended to increase profits.

Back to the environment. In Tuesday’s Sun was a headlined story of how Teck Resources has been polluting the Columbia River for decades and doesn’t deny the story but simply denies the the damages claimed. This candid admission came only after they were sued.

In all events, my short stint as Minister of Environment confirmed what I long had suspected – the real environment department of a company is its public relations budget and that there were no exceptions to that rule.

British Columbians now face serious environmental problems on many fronts – mines, rivers, farm land, fish farms, pipelines and tankers to name a few. And here’s the rub – the corporations are under no compulsion to behave appropriately and, in fact, the onus is not on them to demonstrate that their venture is environmentally sound; no, it’s private citizens and organizations they form that bear that onus!

The Precautionary Principle places to onus of proof on the developer, not the public.

In fact, the onus should not just be on the developer. Counsel for the public should be the governments, but they are, when so-called “free enterprise” parties rule, virtually always bought and paid for and wind up supporting the developer and bad-mouthing environmentalist groups. It’s interesting to note that Ministers accuse environmental groups as being bankrolled by foreign money as they help foreign companies such as Chinese government-owned corporations and companies like General Electric gobble up our resources, pollute like hell then take their money and run.

(Incidentally, The Common Sense Canadian has no foreign “sugar daddies” and would like it known that we would love some!)

Does all this mean that I’m a neo-communist – or even a socialist?

Not at all. I believe in the marketplace, if only because nothing else works as well. I say this recognizing that “socialist” countries are not that at all – they just demand that companies pay their fair share of taxes and obey social and environmental rules. I don’t want public ownership, other than natural monopolies, but strong laws and good policemen.

That is what I mean when I call myself an environmentalist.

In Canada as a whole and in British Columbia we have government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

That’s what we must change if we ever wish, as Lincoln actually said, to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Share
flaring at a

BC NDP Must Come Clean on its Full Energy Policy

Share

The NDP are getting a free ride – at least they certainly are on the energy file.

I must ask again: Why are they not condemning the proposed twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver? All the arguments that prevail against the Enbridge line apply to Kinder Morgan, so to say that you’re waiting for the Kinder Morgan applicationto be filed is a flimsy excuse which waters down their general position on energy.

Speaking of a program, just what is the NDP energy policy? We’d better find out soon or it will be too late.

Some questions.

The NDP is wholly supportive of multiple liquified natural gas (LNG) plants in Kitimat, so far as can be told without any real consultation with the public on either the plant itself or the pipeline that would cross the same  mountains and forests that Enbridge does.

My feeling is that the NDP don’t want to appear to be against everything. Yet the party was much opposed to an LNG plant on Texada Island a few years ago, mainly on dangers it posed. There are not too many examples of plant failure in the past but when they do have one, the destruction of property and human life is extensive.

I don’t say that this project ought to be banned – I just ask when the public process took place. When was the public, including First Nations, consulted on both the need for such a plant and, if passed, what were the technical and environmental concerns, and, again, where was the public process?

John Horgan, the NDP Energy Critic, seems to favour, without reservations, the obtaining of natural gas through the process now called “fracking”, which is a technique whereby natural gas, trapped in shale beds within the earth’s crust is “mined” by forcing it out by the use of huge quantities of water and chemicals. British Columbia has lots of this natural gas and there’s a sort of “gold rush” mentality amongst those who want to get into the act.

There are huge environmental questions, not least of which is the chemical-laden water getting into the domestic water supply and ecosystems. Moreover, where is the water being taken from?

There are also very real worries for the security of the land under which the “fracking” takes place, namely earthquakes being caused by the controversial practice.

The concerns here are not just picky little matters brought up by traditional boo birds but very real worries.

There is a very big economic question involved: BC and Alberta are not the only places in the world where there are lots of potential fracking areas.

With a huge overabundance of natural gas available, can BC compete? Where are the markets? China, which itself has huge trapped natural gas resources?

Normally one might say, that’s the concern of the companies, not us.

But we know that’s not necessarily so, for corporations discount a good part of the downsides by expecting government bailouts if big trouble comes, for the same reason the US government bailed out the stockbrokers – the cost of not bailing out sinking corporate ships was higher than the subsidies. Moreover, the public is a shareholder in this resource and is receiving reduced dividends from it at these historically low market prices.

There is a further question that has been raised but not dealt with, either by the government or the opposition – why are we devoting energy from water resources, that belong to the public to create energy which then will be used by corporations to make new energy?

The nature of BC Hydro, since W.A.C. Bennett’s days, was to create cheap power for both the public and industry but not to be a partner in the industry, thus liable to losses concerned.

The proposed Site “C” Dam is not needed for domestic energy supply – as our resident economist Erik Andersen has amply demonstrated – but day by day looks more like a scheme to subsidize the untested abilities of fracking companies to do so without environmental damage, in questionable markets. And if not for fracking, then to subsidize comparably questionable new mining operations in northern BC – in any event, the power from Site “C” is patently not for the public that would be paying some $10 Billion to build it.

These are some of many questions being raised by everyone accept the Liberals, who are joined at the hip to industry, and the NDP who are not.

It’s bad enough to have a government of a gaggle of nincompoops, but without an Opposition to ask serious and penetrating questions because they fear the voters won’t like it is a potential tragedy which may well lead to an environmental and fiscal mess not only caused by an incompetent government but an incompetent Opposition as well.

Share

The fraudulent public hearings

Share

We are reading a lot about “hearings” these days, especially as they relate to private rivers and pipelines/tanker traffic.

And, on the surface, what could be fairer than to let the public in on the decision making process?

I have indeed spoken of these things before.

The hearings are a fraud, plain and simple, for the public is denied the opportunity to make their views known on the wisdom of the project. The last hearings that meant anything were the BC Utilities Commission hearings about three years ago which reported back that the private rivers policy was “not in the public interest.”

The Campbell government immediately defanged the Commission, for embarrassing findings were not a good idea as far as the government was concerned.

There’s much to be said for technical hearings into environmental matters.

As long as the decision to hold them comes after the public has had a chance to air its opinions.

British Columbians had that right through the Regional District until 2008 when the Squamish Lillooet Regional District vetoed the plan to dam the Ashlu River. The Campbell government immediately took the power to evaluate away from the Regional Districts.

Ashlu is a cautionary tale, for everything the public and experts said about this proposed venture came true. It is an environmental nightmare with thousands of fish blocked from passage by the dam – so delicately referred to as the “weir” by the company.

I have been to a number of joint federal/provincial hearings and, as I have said before, I’d rather have a root canal without novocaine than attend another. The chair and the company representative are joined at the hip even demonstrably socializing before and after the “hearing”. The desirability of the project is off limits for the great unwashed, not so for the company spokesperson who can sing the project’s praises as much as he likes.

Now, let’s go to the root of the matter. Unless you live in an NDP riding. no one is raising questions on your behalf.

Isn’t it remarkable that with a project getting more and more opposed by the public, not one provincial Liberal MLA nor any federal Tory MP will utter a peep about the wisdom of the pipelines and tanker traffic proposed? When they do mention it, like my Conservative MP John Weston, they demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of what is proposed. Think on that – not one single government MLA or MP has demanded hearings into the wisdom of the project before it moves to the environmental assessment stage.

It’s worse, actually, for the Prime Minister has made it plain that no matter what the joint hearings into the pipelines and tankers recommend, the projects will go ahead.

Thus is the state of democracy in this province.

Share

Tankers too risky for coast environment

Share

I am, God knows, no scientist and it’s this that made by heart warm when I saw the story in the Vancouver Sun, September 1 at page A5 headlined “Tankers too risky for coast environment, engineers say”.

Three engineers including two professors emeritus from UBC have verified what I and others have been saying for some time. From the story: “Known as Dilbit, diluted bitumen is a mix of heavy crude oil and a condensate that allows it to flow through a pipe, the analysis explains. When Dilbit spills occur, the condensate separates from the bitumen and forms a toxic cloud, poisonous to all life around a spill” …

“And whereas lighter oil floats on the surface of water where it’s easier to clean up, bitumen sinks to the bottom in fresh water and to a level below the surface in saline water.”

“In both cases it is almost impossible to clean up and tides and currents can spread it over vast areas, with severe and catastrophic consequences for fisheries, marine life, and human safety.” (Emphasis added)

This is scarcely the whole picture when we remember that the Enbridge pipeline travels 1100 kms over the world’s most formidable terrain where the spills are many times more likely to happen than on the coast and will be unreachable by the company which won’t be able to do anything about them anyway. Because these spills will remain, we have a serial polluter on our hands with each new spill adding a new area of devastation.

There is another area no one seems to want to talk about – vandalism or terrorism. We have seen examples of this with gas lines in the Peace area – why do we ignore them with Enbridge and the Kinder Morgan lines.

Yet one more area of concern is how the public and the authorities ever know if there’s a spill on either of these lines. Kinder Morgan has had spills in populated areas but have there been others along their lines that have simply been repaired with none any the wiser?

It’s past time for Premier Clark to make it clear that the Province opposes both the pipelines and the tanker traffic and will do all in its power to prevent them from happening.

Share