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.

Enbridge, Harper and Consequences for Speaking Out

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, , , ,
Share

Did Prime Minister Harper threaten Tides Canada with “consequences” if they didn’t stop funding supporting campaigns – specifically that of ForestEthics – against the Enbridge Pipeline project?
 
ForestEthics says so, which is enough to have all Canadians, no matter what their stance on this issue or others, demand the Prime Minister make it clear that all Canadians, subject to the Criminal Code of Canada, have a constitutional right to say what they please on all issues, big and small – without consequences.
 
I have had experience with this. Back in 1992, when the Mulroney government was shoving the Charlottetown Accord at us, I was one of a very few people in the media that was opposed and said so with a passion.
 
One day my “mole” in the Conservative caucus – and at the same time a national media person – told me that Mulroney was going to retaliate against me by having me face a tax audit. I went on the air the following morning and reported this on the hope that this would discourage such a threat. Whether it worked or not I cannot say – I can say that no such audit was ordered.
 
The information I was given may not have been accurate but the sources were such that I felt very vulnerable.
 
(Before going on let me say that in those days I was making a lot of money from different places and had one of Canada’s best tax accountants, Russ Wilson, handling my affairs, as he still does. As with anyone making that kind of money there are always “grey” areas so that a tax audit could simply stop you cold in whatever you were doing until their audit was over. Ask any small business person what that kind of interruption can do…These days, an old man, I make very little money, have no pensions other than OAP and CPP, and we travel on our kids’ inheritance, so I’m not much of a legitimate target.)
 
I raise this issue because there is no end of ways a government can hassle you with “consequences” but this is a very effective one.
 
The “consequences” Tides Canada would pay, as I understand, would be taking away their charitable tax status, and by extension, their ability to support other environmental organizations and their own affiliate groups like ForestEthics. In the environmental field there are a number of very competent active and effective groups who have such an exemption, without which they simply couldn’t function.
 
The government doesn’t have to take away the exemption – all they have to do is threaten to do so, “or else”.
 
Let me be clear: I do not say that this will become Mr Harper’s way of shutting us all up. I have no evidence to support such an allegation other than the Tides/ForestEthics matter.
 
What I do say is that this sort of tactic has been used before – in the Richard Nixon days it was common.
 
What I also say is that the pipelines/tankers issue is shaping up to be a huge fight with the Harper Government, the oil and tanker businesses and most of the business community lined up against ordinary citizens and distinctly unwealthy environmental groups and spokespeople.
 
We who stand resolutely against the ruination of our environment also have the mainstream media against us. It’s a daunting task yet what I read and hear every day is support from ordinary, decent British Columbians who are undaunted by this huge array of corporate and government power.
 
The collision between Mr. Harper and the people of British Columbia is being made more certain by every assurance the PM gives to companies and governments that the gunk from the Tar Sands will be available to them. Every utterance from him and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver makes it clear that environmental hearings are nothing more than a nuisance and should be cast aside so we “can get on with it”.
 
I have left the biggest issue to the last: First Nations. The federal government has many financial arrangements with First Nations. Will there be “consequences” for the 131 Chiefs who oppose the pipeline/tanker plan from the heart; from the depths of their long heritage?
 
We are en route to a very serious collision and the purpose of this article is twofold: warn the public about how governments in the past have fought issues and demand from Prime Minister Harper that he state clearly and unequivocally that dissent on this or any other issue will not come “with consequences” from him and/or the federal government.
 
If we cannot have that assurance, look for serious consequences for people who put their environment, their treasures, the very soul of this province ahead of ruining it by people outside our province, who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for our feelings about our land and rivers and flora.
 
We are listening, listening very hard Mr Harper, for your clear unequivocal statement that we can oppose your plans without “consequences”.

Share
When will BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix take a firm stand on Enbridge and Kinder Morgan?

Time for Dix to Take a Stand on Pipelines and Tankers

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

This is an open letter to NDP leader Adrian Dix and his Energy Critic, John Horgan.
 
It’s time, gentlemen, to pee or get off the pot.
 
The issues of the proposed Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic on our coast demand your immediate statement of policy.
 
In order that there be no misunderstandings, here are the facts, gentlemen – not assertions or opinions but plain simple to understand facts:

  1. A spill from both pipelines and tankers is a dead certainty.
  2. There is no way these spills can be cleaned up.
  3. The record of Enbridge is appalling.
  4. First Nations, be they on the coast or along the proposed pipeline right of way are opposed – 131 of them.
  5. Neither the federal government nor Enbridge have considered the real possibility of terrorism or vandalism.

The pipelines, one to take the bitumen to Kitimat and the other to take gas condensate back, traverse arguably the last untouched rain forest on earth. It’s certainly as rugged and remote from civilization as anywhere else.
 
Unlike other pipelines Enbridge has built, the route for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline crosses the rugged, mountainous terrain of the Northern Rockies and the Coast Mountains of British Columbia. Enbridge has no experience in this sort of terrain – most likely because no other government has been so stupid and uncaring as to give them or anyone else a right-of-way. The pipeline would cross some 1,000 streams and rivers, including sensitive salmon spawning habitat in the upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds. Five important salmon rivers that would be impacted are the Stuart River, Morice River, Copper River, Kitimat River and Salmon River.

Surely you must be shocked to know that this pipeline is to be constructed by Enbridge which, since 1998, has had 811 “accidents”. The bottom line is, gentlemen, that this project would, beyond any doubt, have spills in terrain inaccessible except by helicopter, which spills would have a disastrous and permanent impact on our beautiful province.

There is nothing Enbridge can do after a spill – they can’t get there. Certainly no heavy equipment could be taken there and, even if it could, the damage will be permanent.

A useful step would be to look at the situation in the Kalamazoo River where Enbridge had a leak in July 2010 which has not been cleaned yet and never will be – the damage is forever. (You will note that Kalamazoo, Michigan is not deep inside rugged mountains.)
 
Let’s look at tankers on the coast.
 
Again, a spill is a mathematical certainty, certified as such by Environment Canada, scarcely full of radicals. Double hulling will help diminish the number of spills but they still are a certainty. In the past two years 4 double hulls have sunk.
 
Just as a luxury cruise ship can run aground in broad daylight under sunny skies and kill 29 people, a tanker will spill. And the consequences will be horrible.
 
Then there is the Kinder Morgan line into Vancouver. I’m not in a position to compare the old Trans -Mountain line with the proposed Enbridge line nor compare the consequences of a leak. What I can say is that there will be leaks – as there were earlier this week near Abbotsford and in Burnaby before that – and the spill will be permanent. With a tanker accident in Burrard Inlet and the Strait of Juan De Fuca, surely you can visualize the calamity that would mean to the Gulf Islands and southern coast of Vancouver Island and to the North Arm of Burrard Inlet and Vancouver Harbour itself.
 
Again, gentlemen, we are not talking risks but certainties.
 
Mr. Dix, Mr. Horgan, what more do you need for you to speak out in firm commitment from you and the NDP condemning the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the tanker traffic out of Kitimat, the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker traffic through and out of Vancouver?
 
I wish to speak plainly. There are many who think that the Common Sense Canadian supports the NDP.
 
We do not – we stand for a political commitment against the catastrophes I have described. That commitment cannot fairly be inferred from snippets of criticism, but only by you, Mr. Dix, declaring your firm opposition to these certain pipeline/tanker disasters.
 
If you don’t take a firm stand, what is to differentiate your position from that of Premier Clark?
 
 

Share

Rafe Tells Harper and Oliver He’s Ready for the Bulldozers

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , ,
Share

Joe Oliver, Harper’s Resources minister, is a dangerous man. Indeed so is Harper. They have flung down the gauntlet, essentially saying that violence is the inevitable consequence of BC not taking the Enbridge Pipeline, the consequent tanker traffic, increased capacity and tankers for the Kinder Morgan line – with only a grumble or two from bitching NDP types.
 
What should really get our juices jumping is the statement that environmental hearings should proceed speedily and obstacles removed from these projects. it obviously being unthinkable that they could stop them.
 
That is ill-disguised code for, “Listen you assholes, we don’t give a damn about the public process – just get it over with so we can get on with the construction. It doesn’t matter that this monstrous Tar Sands gunk is to be transported through your pristine forests, mountain and streams – get on with it.”
 
“Pay no attention, peasants, to the fact that Enbridge has had over 800 spills since 1998 and that experience shows that the mess can never be cleaned up.”
 
“Disregard your stupid bloody salmon – if Newfoundland can get by without cod, you can get by without salmon and, come to think of it, if you have adult seals, there must be pups somewhere to bludgeon and we’ll find a subsidy for you.”
 
“There’s lots of money there for First Nations so stop bringing them into the discussion – as soon as we find out what their price is we’ll pay it and get on with it…why we in the federal government have been dealing with these savages, er First Nations, since 1867 and they trust us.”
 
“And who gives a damn that the people in BC are against these projects – we run things here!”
 
I oppose violence with every remaining sinew in my body but I’m saying to Harper and Oliver that violence is what their policies will bring. I haven’t had a fight since about Grade VII and I lost that one but I can tell you that I’m prepared to stand in the way of that first shovel and take the consequences. And I say to you both that you’re making a mistake if you think you can do these things without very serious consequences.
 
There is no middle way, Prime Minister – this Tar Sands gunk has to go by train or truck through Alberta to Houston because it isn’t coming though BC or through her waters.
 
Do you understand what this issue means to us, Prime Minister?
 
Look what happened in Alberta with the National Energy Plan! There were no environmental hazards involved, just money. The country was shaken to its roots by this policy and the Tories could only get into government and stay there by promising to tube the program.
 
That policy was politically inconsequential compared to the pipelines and tankers.
 
Think on this Mr. Harper: the roar from BC has not come about from the lack of money accompanying the pipelines – because it’s not about the money – yet you tell us a bunch of barnyard droppings about the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Even if that crap was true we’ll not be bought off.
 
You talk as if First Nations will no doubt succumb to a billion dollar bribe and act as if this is just a money game and that you simply haven’t reached high enough for them.
 
What if you’re wrong, Mr. Harper – even you must consider the possibility of error. What then? Do you expect the First Nations to do nothing?
 
I believe you are dead wrong about our First Nations and you’re a damned fool if you simply go into your Ottawa shell and pull the covers over your head.
 
Prime Minister, you seem to be oblivious of the damage you’re doing.
 
The province of BC knows that these hearings are phoney but in a curious way they help us because they give people a place to vent their feelings and come together for the fight.
 
We know that you couldn’t care less that Enbridge has had 811 “accidents” since 1998. But take a moment, Mr. Harper, to check out the July 2010 Enbridge spill in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River; compare that geography with ours and you’ll see that there is no way Enbridge could do anything about a spill in British Columbia, even if they could get anything to it. It’s a problem of nature that not even you and Mr. Oliver can do anything about. Bitumen, because of its viscous nature, is like black ooze – you can’t get rid of it.
 
We know from experience that spills from tanker accidents last for decades.
 
MOSTLY WE KNOW WE KNOW THAT ON LAND AND AT SEA, ACCIDENTS ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES.
 
You must know these things too, Prime Minister, so why are you doing this to us?

Share

Should BC Have a Referendum on Enbridge?

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , ,
Share

If there’s one thing above all politicians hate it’s democracy. For God’s sake, we can’t have the rabble have a say in decisions! Let them do this once and we’ll never get to run the province again! They believe that we live in a parliamentary, representative “democracy” which means that we hire people, called representatives, to do our thinking for us and take decisions in our name.
 
Any thinking citizen knows that the public, for many reasons, cannot grapple with all the issues and email a vote on each one. The theory of our government, runs the mantra, is that at election time we can throw those we disagree with out on their duffs. That, at any rate, is the theory.
 
In practice that doesn’t happen, which means that a government does what it wishes – subject only to elections every four years at which time new issues cloud the old.
 
There is a way that the public can be consulted: a referendum. This is a tool used in many different ways, under different systems – sometimes as a method to get rid of a politician, sometimes to eradicate legislation, sometimes only to go to governments as popular advice.
 
I believe there are issues of such importance that the voter must be called upon to render its opinion and I say that the Enbridge pipelines and tanker traffic are just such issues.
 
On the national scene, in 1992 we had a referendum on changing our constitution when the government could have sought approval of the provinces. This vote was held because the issues went to the root of our social contract.
 
The referendum resulted in heavy debate in the country, especially in BC. Canada turned down the proposed agreement with BC by far the biggest “no” vote.
 
In BC recently we had a referendum on the HST. It was easy to handle on the technical side and the public made its decision.
 
Whether or not that vote was an example of a debate that went to the root of our system of governance is debatable but I give you an issue that clearly does. I refer to the proposed twin pipelines to Kitimat, the subsequent tanker traffic and the expansion of the Kinder Morgan line and its increase in tanker traffic on the south coast. This package of policies to bring bitumen to our coast and ship it by tanker does indeed present a permanent change in policy on an issue that certainly goes to the root of our way of life.
 
That these Enbridge pipelines will leak is now beyond debate and it’s crystal clear that even if the company does get to a spill in wilderness BC, there is nothing it can do – the damage will be permanent. It’s the same, we surely must agree, with a tanker spill in our coastal waters. Enbridge has an appalling record, over 800 spills since 1998. Moreover, apart from temporary jobs in construction and a handful of permanent jobs, BC gets nothing for being the overland conduit for the highly toxic bitumen from the Tar Sands.
 
Prime Minister Harper and his Resources Minister Joe Oliver are talking about this all being a done deal.
 
Does the destruction of our environment not seem to you to be a matter we the public should have a say in?
 
In making this case I understand that it would not disturb First Nations land and other claims.
 
Let’s be clear on this – Prime Minister Harper hasn’t any time for democracy.
 
Because these issues are so important, Premier Clark should hold a referendum but she hasn’t the courage – she’s afraid to threaten Harper on the HST and of more concern, she wants Harper to withhold all support for John Cummins at the local level. That should be easy since Harper and Cummins loathe one another.
 
So to Premier Photo-Op: Madam, BC has jurisdiction over its coastline so let’s have that referendum.
 
Oops! I nearly forgot – is the debate I proposed between you and me on our environmental policy a go?
 
Surely you, with an entire government behind you, can’t be afraid of taking on an old man who would only bring to the debate all he has left – a fire in his belly!
 
Back to business – will you have a referendum and let the people decide what must be the law concerning pipelines and tanker traffic in this province of ours?
 
If not, why not?
 

Share

Clark, Harper, Enbridge Taking Suicidal Risks With BC’s Future

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Today, because events are moving so quickly, a twofer for you.
 
First, Premier Clark is in one hell of a jam and it’s scarcely improved with a man who I bet left the inner staff of Attila the Hun to join with Madam Photo-op by name of Ken Boessenkool, who amongst other clients worked as lobbyist for Enbridge for two years! What the hell reason could she give for this kind of move?

This woman is out of control. She’s in a political hotbox like President Gerry Ford was when he took over the mess Nixon left him. In fact she’s in a box Houdini couldn’t have escaped.

She’s trying to distance herself from the disgraceful reign of Gordon Campbell and now finds herself in the midst of the worst environmental fight probably in history. The proposed Enbridge Pipeline and resultant tanker traffic is straight from the Gordon Campbell/Fraser Institute playbook and it isn’t working out quite like the Liberal advisors had expected. In fact, Clark is facing, and knows she’s facing a political storm that makes Bill Vander Zalm’s troubles look like a kid’s fight in a sand box.

The trouble is, the public is onto them. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a rupture or spill is inevitable and that the word “risk” has been replaced by “certainty”. Clark has this problem: the project only has the support of the “right” and the pretty far right at that. This problem wasn’t seen by the likes of Patrick Kinsella and other handlers – it’s called believing your own bullshit.

The NDP, and, of course the Greens have staked out the “no bloody way” voters and you might think well, so what’s the problem?

It’s called The Conservative Party and John Cummins. Without them, Clark might have been able to hold all the non NDP vote and been able to hold on. I doubt that because the government is in deep doo doo on so many fronts. With the Conservatives in the picture it’s Adrian Dix’s dream come true. Not only is their enemy divided but he has a good chance with the voter who perhaps doesn’t like anybody very much but tends to vote right rather than left.

If Ms. Clark were surrounded by happy campers, perhaps the Libs could hang on. The cold fact is that she only had one caucus member who supported her leadership and because he was given a cabinet seat – and then screwed up – she has a nest of adders in her caucus, many of whom will be looking at their own ridings and grasping at the life saver as they jump ship.

The pipeline/tanker issue has Clark buried. She knows it’s a terrible idea for the province and the people but can’t say so because she’ll lose her supporters.

She can’t say yes without jeopardizing her election chances.

She’s apparently without sufficient courage to say “no” and say “to hell with the right”, inside or outside the party, run on that stance then say, “Mr. Dix, we both agree on the pipeline/tanker issue now lets get down to the issue of which party should run this province.”
 
She doesn’t have the jam to do that so even the faint chance of a May 2013 victory is all but gone.

————————————————————————————————————————

Secondly, let us get some things straight for the times ahead – there will be leaks and spills from the pipeline and tankers no matter how much trouble Enbridge goes to avoid them. We’re being asked to commit environmental suicide – by Enbridge, the federal government and, by strong inference, Premier Clark.
 
My old and perhaps late friend, Bud Smith, says we cannot demand perfection. The trouble is, that is precisely what is demanded from Enbridge and its tanker clients because anything less will permanently damage the world’s last great rainforest – it cannot be remedied.
 
The route Enbridge’s pipelines would travel is for the most part inaccessible except by helicopter, meaning that even if there were measures to fix an oil spill (there aren’t) there is no way it could be handled (see map below).

The proposed pipeline crosses several mountain ranges and nearly 1000 rivers and streams, including at least three major ones where hundreds of thousands of salmon spawn. This is a region which caribou, grizzly bears, other species of bear, including the rare Spirit Bear, deer and moose inhabit. It is, in short, an ecological treasure.
 
But let’s play along with Enbridge and let’s say that there is only a one in 100 chance of a leakage. Look at the map and see where that 1 in 100 is going to strike…are you going to gamble away our wilderness on these odds?
 
Forget about the environment for a moment and look at it as a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the leakage will come in a wilderness which will likely be only reachable by helicopter making any equipment for a clean-up out of the question, is the financial gain to BC worth this likely consequence?
 
This is a critical question, for the record is clear – you simply cannot clean up an oil spillage wherever it may occur.
 
The fact is, except for a few low paying white collar jobs there is no gain for BC. We are letting Enbridge use our wilderness to transfer Alberta’s toxic gunk to Kitimat to be shipped down our highly sensitive coast line to Asia and America. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I don’t want to deal with economics here but simply the wilderness of the province of British Columbia.
 
We must understand that Enbridge has an unbelievably bad track record. Since 2002 their American subsidiaries alone racked up 170 leaks, and the company itself had a staggering 610 leaks from 1999-2008, including a 2007 explosion in Minnesota that killed two men and brought it $2.4 million in fines – this in addition to a 2003 gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 in Ontario. More recently there is the Kalamazoo River spill in July 2010 which will never be cleaned up.
 
I leave it thusly:
 
Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?

Share

Rafe Challenges Premier Photo-op to a Debate

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , ,
Share

I have good news for our premier.
 
If what I’m about to say is wrong, you have nothing to worry about. You see, Premier, I have this radical notion that the mood of the voter has changed – you evidently don’t, making it obvious (sorry to talk as if you are a slow learner) that if you just paddle along, down the happy old stream, why the voters, so afraid of the bad old NDP, will put you right back in government in 2013.
 
In fact, if I’m wrong and you’re right, may I respectfully suggest that some tactics are natural:

1. Keep right on charging us the HST. No matter that if you could start it in an instance you could stop immediately. I’m sure that the voter knows that you’re really trying hard on this matter.

2. Ignore the Fish Farm issue – most of the jurisdiction is now with the Feds so just wash your hands of the whole mess. Some might suggest that you should now speak up for BC and urge the Feds to get rid of this monstrous rape of our precious wild salmon resources, but I’ll betcha most people will overlook the fact that you don’t want to piss off the feds just when you’re trying to make a deal on that pesky HST.

Even though I and others will, tiresomely remind voters that it was under your stewardship that this horrific mess came about you can depend upon the fact that the voters will still have faulty memories.

3. On the question of those private power plants you should assume that I’m wrong to say that voters are pissed over losing all those rivers to foreign companies to make power BC Hydro must pay for yet doesn’t need. I’m obviously a bad British Columbian who doesn’t realize voters don’t care about BC Hydro going broke, and trust in your bosom buddies at the Fraser Institute who say it would be a great blessing if all crown corporations and agencies went into private hands. (By the way, Madame Premier, did you know that a fairly recent “Fellow” of the Fraser Institute believes in “consensual slavery”? If, for example, a young single Mom can’t feed, clothe and educate her kids she should be permitted to enter permanent bondage to some guy with lots of loot! Look it up…I can give you the guy’s name but your government should, I know you would agree, do its own research.)

4. If I’m wrong about the pipeline issues clearly you should maintain your position. Just in order for people to understand what that position is, can we infer from recent comments that you don’t think the Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat should be dealt with by the National Energy Board? And that I’m wrong again to point out that a spill from such a pipeline is inevitable and the ability of Enbridge to get to, much less do anything about it is nil? Again, with respect, might I suggest that your people “google” Enbridge/Kalamazoo?

5. I am always on about tanker traffic and simply oppose it as being a sure source of catastrophe. Again, with respect and just for clarity, might I infer from your statements that you don’t understand that the Enbridge Pipeline must result in about 300 tankers a year out of Kitimat, down the most beautiful and most dangerous coastline in the world? It’s like the old song about Love and Marriage – “you can’t have one without the other.” I should add, Madame Premier, that I’m sure you know about the new capacity and planned huge expansion of the Kinder Morgan line to ship Tar Sands gunk through Burrard Inlet.

No, of course, a person of your attainments must understand the big picture here and just think that in this modern world we need gunk from the Tar Sands going to China more than a pristine environment.
 
I do have this little query Ms. Clark: what does BC get out of all this except short term labour? Are we getting royalties? Any security against damages certain to happen?
 
6. I have been making a lot of noise about First Nations rights where land has not been ceded. I believe First Nations have rights and, following the Supreme Court of Canada, ownership of land not yet dealt with. Following the theory that the opposite of Rafe’s opinions are the right ones, you should continue to ignore these interests and just barge ahead – after all, we’re only talking about a bunch of Indians here and you will surely make the case that Rafe’s concerns about their rights are not in the best interests of the Province. Standing against Rafe and all those who stand with First Nations, especially where the environment is at issue will surely be understood by voters for what it is – loyalty to all your old friends. Surely that trumps concerns for touchy-feely things like birds, bears, fish, caribou that don’t make you a nickel for election expenses.
 
May I make another assertion on your behalf, namely that the NDP are fiscally irresponsible and that your government is business-oriented. I want you to know my stance so that you can be clear what you oppose.
 
Here’s Rafe’s take:
 
Party philosophies and positions tend to change over time and the coming of new issues – surely you and your party would agree to that. I believe that the NDP has learned much more from its mistakes than you have learned from yours.
 
I say that there are things the public should know about.
 
The NDP from 1991-2001 doubled the Provincial debt. From 2001-2011 the Campbell/Clark government more than tripled it.
 
I understand that your claim is that the Liberal debt was caused by events over which you had no control. If that’s the case you must be saying that when you put together your 2009 budget and ran an election on it you hadn’t heard of the 2007 stock market crash and the 2008 massive Recession.
 
At the same time – I hope I’m not embarrassing you Madame – when the NDP were in power the Asian Flu occurred, all but obliterating that market for our forest products. I would like to say that then-Opposition Leader Gordon Campbell pitched in and offered bi-partisan support in our province’s time of need but, alas, such was not the case.
 
So there we have it Premier – your view of things and those who are of another persuasion.
 
Disagreement on all fronts – so let’s you and me have a debate!
 
Looks like pretty easy pickings for you but I’m used to being beat upon and will do it just so you can demolish all my silly, left wing notions with one swing of the bat.
 
Surely you, a premier with all the resources of government behind you isn’t afraid of an octogenarian who’s not running for anything. (I’m not running away from anything either – are you?)
 
So, let’s do a TV debate on these matters – any time, any place – and let the chips fall where they may.
 
 

Share
Enbridge's 2010 spill of over 4 million barrels in Michigan - still not cleaned up

Enbridge Admits There Will Be Spills

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, , ,
Share

Enbridge is proposing two pipelines to Kitimat BC to take Tar Sands gunk (more politely “bitumen”) to tankers who at 300 per year will take it to China as is, or to the United States for refining, thence China.
 
Today I want to deal with the pipelines only. The horrible consequences of tankers on our coast are for another column.
 
First off, there is no question that there will be leaks and that any leak will be serious and in a remote area. The lines will cross over 800 rivers and streams, all fish bearing – three of which are important salmon spawning rivers.
 
Two questions arise. When there’s a spill somewhere in the heart of wilderness, how long does it take to find it and, once found, what can you do about it?
 
The answer is you don’t know and there’s nothing you can do about it.
 
Here is the interesting point – in their promotional materials, Enbridge expressly admits that there will be spills because they talk not of eliminating leaks but of “managing” them.
 
That last line is critical because it’s Enbridge’s confession that they cannot prevent spills – in fact the confession is certified by this release called Enbridge Line 6B Response, wherein Enbridge talks about “risks”, opening with this:

Because of their location and the products they carry, pipelines may come in contact with water, bacteria and various chemicals, all of which can corrode steel. Both the interior and exterior of the line are potentially subject to corrosion. We combat [not eliminate – my comment -RM] corrosion by:

  • using high-quality materials and anti-corrosion coatings
  • scheduling regular monitoring and inline inspections to check for corrosion
  • scheduling excavation and repair programs identified by inline inspections
  • using cathodic protection (a low level electrical current) to inhibit corrosion of underground pipelines
  • using modelling tools to predict corrosion growth rates along pipelines
  • using inline devices known as “pigs” to clean and inspect pipelines from the inside
  • using specialized corrosion inhibitors within the pipeline to address internal corrosion”

Thus the candid admission that there will be spills.

Under Managing Stress Corrosion and Cracking, Enbridge says:

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a crack initiation and growth process that can occur in steel pipelines. Research has shown that SCC is caused by a number of factors, including pipe material, stress and the environment surrounding the pipe. SCC typically occurs on the exterior of the pipe. This type of cracking has the potential to penetrate the steel and cause a pipeline break.

You will note that there is no action to eliminate stress corrosion
.

Under Setting Leak Reduction Targets And Performance Goals: ”
We believe that pipeline safety and reliability begin with prevention. This means recognizing conditions that have been known to cause failures in the past – then working to minimize the risk.”

Again, Enbridge does not talk about eliminating the “risk” but managing it!
This release confirms what The Common Sense Canadian has been saying all along: spills from pipelines are not “risks” at all but dead certainties.

There is more to it than this. Throughout the debate there has been no mention of outside causes such as terrorism or vandalism. Think on that a moment – 1070 km of dangerous Tar Sands gunk over a wilderness area and no one is considering these threats!

If there is a leak from any reason, how does Enbridge respond? How do they find the problem and once having found it, how do they get to it? Moreover, how do they get heavy equipment to the site, and once there, what the hell do they do about it?

A good example of how Enbridge handles spills is found in the spill in July 2010 in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, a highly populated area. It took several days to get to the spill and in nearly 18 months Enbridge has not come close to cleaning it up!

In fact it’s not possible to clean up oil spills – the Exxon Valdes spill in 1989 is still not cleaned up.

No matter what is said, and by Enbridge’s confession, Pipeline ruptures cannot be stopped but are dead certainties, the only question being the damage done. In our case, by the nature of the location the resultant spills will create appalling, ongoing and long-term consequences.

We simply cannot let this happen.

Share

Fighting the Corporate Take-Over of BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

I write this not just as a New Year’s thought but also as one looking personally at his ninth and presumably last decade. And a sad scene I see.

From the commencement of time ownership and control of societies have been shared, preposterously unfairly, between “them that has and them that doesn’t”.

It continues today as never before. What the super rich don’t own, they control. 100s of thousands of jobs, thanks to the computer, have been exported to lands where labour is dirt-cheap and where benefits are minimal if they exist at all.

We are witnessing the corporatization of our government by the powerful. It’s an easy task, for the ordinary MP or MLA, by reason of our rotten system, does what his or her leader orders. The decisions of society are no longer made by parliaments – if they ever were – but in the corporate boardroom.

A question or two:

What say did you have re: fish farms? What say have you about the huge damage these farms present? What say have you now on new licenses?

What say have you had in the destruction our rivers by large and very rich foreign companies? Have you agreed that it’s a good thing that these private sector companies get a sweetheart deal, where they sell power to BC Hydro for more than twice what it’s worth, forcing Hydro to buy this power at a huge loss when they don’t need it?

BC Hydro is technically bankrupt – is that what you thought you would have when the Campbell government set forth its private energy policy, turning over power production to rich companies like General Electric?

What say did you have in the privatization of BC Rail where the Campbell government gave our railroad away in a crooked deal that the government hushed up?

What about the Enbridge Pipeline scheduled to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of Tar Sands gunk (aka bitumen) from the Alberta to Kitimat? Have you had a say in this matter? The only reason to send this gunk to Kitimat is so that it can be shipped down our coast through the most dangerous waters in the world – have you had a say in this?

Of course you haven’t and it’s instructive, I think, to note that Premier Clark will only express her opinion after the rubber stamping National Energy Board has deliberated.

Premier Photo-Op doesn’t seem to understand that the approval of the pipeline means oil tankers at almost one a day sailing down our pristine coast line.

Is the premier that dumb?

Or is it that her government is prepared to approve tanker traffic?
 
The companies and politicians talk about minimal risk – the plain, incontrovertible fact is this:

THESE ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES WAITING TO HAPPEN.

The issue facing BC can be simply stated: will we give up our land and resources to the private sector and, while we do it, will we accept the destruction of our environment?

The Corporations say that these efforts, fish farms, private power, pipelines and tankers will being lots of money and lots of jobs into BC.

I ask two questions – what money and what jobs? Building fish farms, private dams and pipelines bring construction jobs, mostly to off shore crews, and leave behind a few caretakers to watch the computers. The profits go out of the province into the pockets of Warren Buffet and his ilk.

This is the fact Premier Clark must ponder and soon: will the public of BC simply accept these destructions of our beautiful province? Will they just simply shake their heads and go quietly?

In my view they won’t. Through the ages the long-suffering public takes so much and no more. Read your history, Madame Premier – there comes a tipping point where the public will take no more and in my judgment we have reached that point.

I beg of you, Premier, shake the scales from your eyes, look and think! This isn’t a right wing versus left wing matter but a question of right and wrong.

The last thing in the world I want to see is violence but I tell you fair that the decision rests upon you – if you don’t deal with the fish farmers, the energy thieves, the pipelines and tankers there will be violence, and that will be the legacy of the Campbell/Clark government.

Share

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Mining, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?
 
We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.
 
Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.
 
What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.
 
Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?
 
What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.
 
Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.
 
Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.
 
Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.
 
Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to  Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.
 
This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.
 
I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.
 
Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.
 
Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.
 
Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.
 
I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.
 
I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.
 
Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?
 
Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?
 
That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

Share
Conservative Party Leader John Cummins supports Enbridge - what is he thinking?

Rafe on Cummins’ Foolhardy Support for Enbridge – Plus Reflections on Cohen

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, , ,
Share

I must say I was surprised to see that Conservative leader John Cummins supports the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and I have since wondered if that would impact the NDP, the Liberals, both – or anyone.
 
John has never been strong on complicated issues and I wonder if he realizes that by supporting Enbridge he is also supporting tanker traffic? This may come as a surprise, nay shock, to Mr. Cummins, but it’s like the old song, “you can’t have one without the other”.
 
Perhaps Mr. Cummins has forgotten that Enbridge would cross 1000 rivers and streams, including 3 major salmon spawning rivers. Or does he have trouble with geography and thus is unable to trace these rivers into the Pacific Ocean thus doesn’t think there are any salmon around?
 
I wonder what’s next? Will we soon have a statement from Mr. Cummins that he favours fish farms as long as they do it right? Will we see him embracing his old Tory comrade, John Duncan, who is the only politician I know who likes fish farms and a man Cummins heartily disliked in his previous life?
 
Mr. Cummins has long had trouble with First Nations, especially in the area of fish – does the fact that First Nations oppose Enbridge and tankers account for the Tory leader’s decision?
 
I can’t see this announcement affecting the NDP one way or another – their goal remains namely getting 40% of the popular vote.
 
Maybe this shows that the same old whacko right-wing bunch still controls the unhappy band of no-hopers called the BC Conservative Party and that Cummins fooled people like me who thought he had a bit of decent Red Toryism in him.

————————————————————————————————————————–
 
In other matters, I followed much of the Cohen Commission and it seems to me that one thing has been clearly established: the fish farm industry has been obstructive in the extreme, withholding evidence and lying through their teeth.
 
They are now backed into a corner where their sole escape is to say “these diseases predated our arrival so that any disease in our fish was not our fault” – the old sea lice defence. Even if this is so, the defence fails as it does with sea lice.
 
Here is the meat of the matter – hundreds of thousands of penned fish provide a huge number of hosts to become infected and thus create a huge aura of disease that migrating salmon must go through. Be it viruses or sea lice, the fish cages become so infectious that wild fish passing them can’t help being stricken. In other words, migrating salmon can deal with lice and disease when it’s in the normal quantity – in nature’s balance – but they haven’t a chance passing fish cages.
 
The Cohen Commission has exposed a corrupt industry that puts money far ahead of moral obligation. It does more than that, for when you analyze them alongside other industries in the environment, they demonstrate beyond doubt, whether you’re talking power, mining, extracting, transporting product – none of them gives a damn about the environment. Corporate Responsibility is an oxymoron.
 
What truly makes one want to throw up are the ads these lying bastards display and the shit that pours from their flacks. The news media that take their high priced ads and give endless free space for the flacks are beneath contempt.
 
Hard as it is to believe, the politicians are even worse. There’s Premier Photo-op in her year-end review saying that she will wait for all the evidence to come in before dealing with pipelines and tankers.
 
What evidence to come in? Another Kalamazoo spill from Enbridge? Another Exxon Valdez? Some help with basic arithmetic showing how leaks and spills are not risks but downright certainties?
 
You can measure the Campbell/Clark governments concern about our cherished environment and all within it by comparing it to the concerns of large corporations – except it’s worse, for the corporations have no morality, while the governments hold our possessions in trust; they have a solemn moral obligation to the voters.
 
To say they all have the morals of an alley cat does a grave injustice to cats.
 

Share