Rafe Mair, LL.B, LL.D (Hon) a B.C. MLA 1975 to 1981, was Minister
of Environment from late 1978 through 1979. In 1981 he left politics for
Talk Radio becoming recognized as one of B.C.'s pre-eminent journalists.
An avid fly fisherman, he took a special interest in Atlantic salmon farms
and private power projects as environmental calamities and became a
powerful voice in opposition to them. Rafe is the co-founder of The Common Sense Canadian and writes a regular blog at rafeonline.com.
View all posts by Rafe Mair →
I see that Premier Photo–Op has appointed George Abbott, Education Minister, to work on revamping the Liberal Party to get it out of the ditch prior to the May 2013 election.
Good luck, George – you’ll need it.
My latter day concerns have been about environmental issues, something I don’t believe the Liberals can do, or even want to do anything about. The government would go a long way down the path of reconstruction if Premier Clark did four things: put a moratorium on fish farms along with a program of getting them on land; put a permanent stop to any new so-called “run of river” projects; announce the end of Taseko’s Fish Lake project; announce that no oil tankers will ply BC waters.
The trouble with the first three is the Campbell/Clark government doesn’t have the political courage to do them and, moreover, doing so would cost the party substantial political donations – a telling point with this bunch to whom election funds always trump honesty and honour..
The fourth one is tricky. The provincial government probably doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the pipelines but it sure as hell does over tankers – and without tankers there will be no pipelines. The Campbell/Clark lack of courage is because of its stupidity with the HST and it’s now so deep in debt to the feds they dare not oppose them. Yes, folks, the HST has us in thrall to Ottawa, something that in my time has never happened. In plain language the feds hold Premier Clark in a blackmail position – if BC is to be shown any mercy over the HST cock-up it must permit the Fish Lake project to proceed, make no noise on the Enbridge pipeline project and approve oil tanker traffic on the coast.
This, dear readers, is one reason Gordon Campbell was eager to clear out and one of the reasons Prime Minister Harper gave him that plum job in London.
Those are not the only problems Mr. Abbott has. The underlying malaise that the C/C government must deal with is that they have done a lousy fiscal job. While painting themselves as the fiscally sound party, they have kept the story of NDP fiscal sins front and centre, for wasn’t it they who bollixed up our economy?
The answer is no. The NDP look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to the government of wastrels we’ve been governed by for the last 10 ½ years. It started right after the May 2001 election when Campbell gave away more than a billion dollars in taxes on the well off.
From that point until now, the Campbell/Clark government has more than tripled the real provincial debt, putting the province in hock for as far as the eye can see.
Because of the lousy media we have, it wasn’t much noticed that when the Liberals came down with their unbelievable 2009 election budget – which was over a billion dollars short of reality – that it was phoney as Hell and that the Liberals knew it throughout. This came out when, after the election was safely behind them, the government said that it was all the fault of the Recession. To accept this bullshit would mean that the Liberals didn’t notice the Stock Market crash in 2007/08, nor the recession that followed! They also had to ignore the information that the Finance Ministry had that tax revenues were dropping.
In short, the Liberal government either was so stupid as to not notice a market crash, a huge dose of criminality on Wall Street, or the severe Recession that followed – or they deliberately lied.
Then there was the HST that one need not mention.
In short, the Liberal Party’s renowned fiscal prudence is a crock of crap. And it’s worse – the government ought have foreseen the fiscal problems even before it hit the fan – reading numbers and foreseeing trouble is what Finance Ministries are all about.
To Mr Abbott – while you’re reorganizing your party, looking to the future as politicians always say, I must warn you that you will be looking to the past as well as you will be asked questions. There are, even in your own party, a great many British Columbians who want answers, no matter how awkward it might be to give them.
The paths, inexorably to a meeting point to violence, can only be changed by the senior governments, especially the feds. The cause of these paths are three: 1. the proposed Enbridge oil pipelines to Kitimat, carrying bitumen (sludge from the Tar Sands) mixed with gas (condensate), with one line running the condensate to the Tar Sands; 2. the Kinder Morgan line bringing the Tar Sands (and if the company has its way, much more of them) to Vancouver Harbour; 3. the tanker companies that would ship this gunk from Kitimat, down through the dangerous Inner Passage to China or the US – and those taking it through the dangerous 2nd Narrows into the Salish Sea, again bound for Asia or America.
Before going further, these projects are not only opposed by First Nations – polls show 80% of British Columbians oppose the tanker traffic and, of course, the pipelines are useless unless the gunk can be shipped.
The matter came to a head when President Obama refused to pass the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Houston. Instantly, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the BC lines must therefore be put on the “fast track”, overlooking, one supposes deliberately, the mandate of the National Energy Board to hold hearings (whose completion time was extended this week by a full year, due in part to the enormous number of citizens and organizations who’ve registered to speak at these hearings). In fact, Flaherty confirmed suspicions that the Federal Government regards this process as a nuisance to be done then ignored.
Over the past few years First Nations have made it clear that this – in former Coastal First Nations’ President Gerald Amos’ words – “is not going to happen”.
Let’s look at the position of First Nations today.
This from an article I did here on December 4. This is saying a hell of a lot but the coverage of the events I’ll deal with were marked by one of the lousiest examples of media mis-reporting I can remember.
…Damien Gillis and I attended a press conference last Thursday called by First Nations who would be impacted by scheduled pipelines and tankers to outline their “Save the Fraser Declaration” – a document that leaves no doubt about their unified opposition to these proposals. In all, 131 nations have now signed on.
Moreover, this declaration almost certainly will be signed in the near future by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, who face the proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to their traditional territory on Burrard Inlet. The Tsleil-Waututh first came out against the company’s plans – which could see up to 300 super tankers loaded with Alberta bitumen plying the waters of Vancouver – in a press release last month…
This hugely important event received a brief column in the Business Section of The Vancouver Sun while the following day’s front page story – with a banner headline – told how Elmer Derrick, one of 60-plus hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan Nation, had made a deal with Enbridge.
So typical for this sad excuse for a newspaper – bury the big story about an agreement that 131 Chiefs make and pounce with glee on the one who dissents.
Reaction from the Gitxsan was quick with opposition to refuse to recognize the agreement, saying that Derrick was not speaking for them – as this video taken at an emergency community meeting just days after the announcement of the deal demonstrates.
Enbridge fired back that they were comfortable with the deal with Derrick and had many other Nations on side and that they would proceed with signing with them and others.
In jumped Joe Oliver, federal Natural Resources Minister, as reported by the Sun: “[Oliver] said the project, if approved by the National Energy Board, shouldn’t be
held hostage by aboriginal and environmental groups threatening to
create a human ‘wall’ to prevent construction.” The minister continued, “Look, this is a country that lives by the Rule of Law and I would hope that that would be the standard going forward…we can’t let unlawful people oppose lawful development.”
I, apparently, came to Mr. Oliver’s mind – and to remove all doubt, sir, I will indeed be part of that human “wall” and perhaps I should tell you why.
I hardly need any publicity in this my native and much-beloved province. At any age, but especially at 80, I’ve no wish to expose myself to the health hazard posed by prison, but I can’t stand idle while the very essence of this land will be desecrated to satisfy greed without the consent of its people.
Interesting approach. I would have thought he would have said, “When the National Energy Board makes its report and if it supports Enbridge, we hope that the company can get approval from the First Nations involved.”
The scene now shifts back to Mr Derrick. Just yesterday – after going into hiding for five days from the media that had given him so much press – he had an op-ed piece in, where else, The Vancouver Sun, which, apparently, has become a great fan of his. In it Mr. Derrick extols the virtuousness of his involvement with Enbridge and who is in and speaks for the Gitxsan and why. Interesting story but not a single solitary syllable about the environment – nor about the recent controversy of his own making, or even his alleged firing from his job as a treaty negotiator by the community he purportedly represents!
Now I don’t wish to intrude on Gitxsan politics but wouldn’t the rank and file expect their leader, who has made them $7 million for something to be received sometime, would discuss the many questions being raised by 131 of his colleagues and neighbours – men and women of many tribes – all opposed to Enbridge?
Enter the Lawyer. For any decent dispute you need lots of them. Name of Nigel Bankes from the University of Calgary. I can’t tell you what got him cranked up…was it Mr. Derrick? The Conservative government? Enbridge? The Vancouver Sun? Or did he just wake up one morning and decide to unburden himself of his long commitment to the principle that parliaments can do whatever they want?
His contribution consists in telling us that Enbridge does not need to get permission for its pipelines from “every first nation over (the pipelines) it passes…at the end of the day there isn’t a first nations veto.”
He does concede, according to the Sun, that “governments do have an obligation to consult with nations…and must demonstrate they have ‘integrated the result of consultations in the project’s design.’”
The government, Enbridge and Mr. Derrick seem to be saying that the rank and file First Nations, through their leaders, do not have the right to use the international words for GO AWAY to Enbridge, because in the government reposes the law of the land, which, after a little pas de deux to entertain the masses, it can do as it pleases!
I hate to disappoint Messrs Derrick, Oliver, Bankes (sounds like a good name for a law firm) but many First Nations and their lawyers hold a contrary view and say that section 35 does in fact give them a veto.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 provides constitutional protection to the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. The rights Section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to aboriginal self-government is included within section 35. Since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.
The leaders in the aboriginal community that I have spoken to make it clear that if rights in Section 35 grant them powers as indicated, clearly they must have full rights to protect them. They go further and say that their law prevails on all matters save where their title and rights might have been ceded – and they haven’t been, where the proposed Enbridge pipeline and tanker routes are concerned.
My question as a lawyer of long ago – if the government and Enbridge say they have the right to do as they please, why not just do it? If Mr. Bankes is right that there is no right of First Nations to stop them, why doesn’t Enbridge hold some hearings with the First Nations, say that they have consulted, then get on with it?
This isn’t a smart alec question at all, for if all Enbridge need do in Bankes’ opinion is integrate the results of consultation in the project’s design, a first year law student would be all that’s needed to gussy their design up to suit.
I close with a serious warning to the government and Enbridge: You are proceeding down a one-way path to disaster. Enbridge doesn’t care for the environment – look at their record. Look at what they did in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River! Oil spills are simply a cost of business which is, happily, a tax credit.
Aboriginal peoples say that they stand upon the Rule of Law, which they say includes their own law as guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act. They make the sensible argument that to have rights over fishing, logging, hunting, the right to aboriginal title and the right to enforce treaties, those words must mean that they can legislate to protect them – otherwise the words mean nothing.
Mr. Oliver – you’re being a damned fool and a dangerous one and when the violence comes, as it will, it will be on your head and that of your government. I’m not inciting violence – on the contrary, it is because I so abhor violence I plead with your government to come to its senses.
Art Sterritt of the Coastal First Nations sets the record straight at a recent press conference
Editor’s Note: Since the publication of this editorial, The Vancouver Sun has published a form of a correction story on its front page Monday – though no mention of the mistakes it made with its Saturday headline story.
There is a reason – a big reason – chiefs of all First Nations in line to be adversely affected by oil pipelines and tanker traffic are so stubborn. You see, they understand that the consequences can be summed up by the words “certain catastrophe”. These little words sum up why Prime Minister Harper and Premier “photo-op” Clark are getting no traction with bribes in exchange for pipelines and tankers.
My colleague, Damien Gillis and I attended a press conference last Thursday called by First Nations who would be impacted by scheduled pipelines and tankers to outline their “Save the Fraser Declaration” – a document that leaves no doubt about their unified opposition to these proposals. In all, 131 nations have now signed on.
Moreover, this declaration almost certainly will be signed in the near future by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, who face the proposed expansion of KinderMorgan’s pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to the their traditional territory on the Burrard Inlet. The Tsleil-Waututh first came out against the company’s plans – which could see up to 300 supertankers loaded with Alberta bitumen plying the waters of Vancouver – in a press release last month.
On this point, the Tsleil-Waututh’s Community Development Director, Rueben George (grandson of Canadian hero Chief Dan George) strongly intimated that his group will soon endorse the Fraser Declaration, once they’ve completed due process within their community. I have no doubt that the federal approval of KinderMorgan’s ability to export more oil from the line, arrogantly coming along side Thursday’s press conference, will guarantee the expected response from First Nations in and around the Burrard Inlet.
When the Tsleil-Waututh do sign on to the Fraser Declaration, that will formally unite the battles against both proposed pipeline projects in BC, drawing together an unprecedented alliance of First Nations and non-indigenous supporters around the province.
A couple of weeks ago there was an article in the business section of The Globe and Mail, where Art Sterritt, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations, was quoted in a manner that suggested that perhaps the First Nations might bend on the pipelines if the environmental studies warranted it: “’If we could have a fresh start and were able to build a good relationship, the Coastal First Nations might be willing to take another look at the project,’ Art Sterritt, the group’s executive director, said in an interview. ‘That wouldn’t mean we would necessarily come out and agree with it, but we would certainly take a closer look at it.’”
At Thursday’s press conference, Damien gave Mr. Sterritt an opportunity to address that article and the way his words and Coastal First Nations’ position were presented within. The chief responded that he had been quoted out if context and the nations he represents were unequivocally opposed to the pipelines. Without diminishing the comments of others, Chief Sterritt’s uncompromising words were among the strongest of the day and left no doubt that no pipelines or tanker traffic will pass through lands and waters claimed by First Nations. “Tanker traffic is banned from the Great Bear Rainforest, from the Great Bear Sea. It will never happen,” Sterritt declared to the assembled press gallery.
Chief Sterritt’s words should be paid careful attention; since you can have all the pipelines in the world but if the oil can’t be taken by tanker to its destination, or if permitted to do so, can’t ship it out, there’s no point building pipelines. It’s a football game with one goal post and end zone missing – there can be no “game”.
As a bit of a cynic I had wondered if what we were seeing were negotiations and Enbridge was considering a counter-offer that First Nations would accept. After this press conference, my cynicism left and I’m convinced that it’s not a matter of negotiation but a clear statement that the issue is not negotiable, no matter what the final bribe might be offered.
This point cannot be over-emphasized, given the poverty in many bands. Unlike what we see in other segments of Canadian society, many First Nations are putting culture and the future of their children ahead of bribes – no matter what the amount is.
There’s been concern expressed – by me as well as others – that at the end of the day the northern pipelines and tanker traffic might not happen because the KinderMorgan line, which already brings unrefined oil to Vancouver Harbour, will be expanded so as to allow it to take more Tar Sands bitumen, thus making the northern lines unnecessary. Rueben George of the Tsleil-Waututh, while he is still canvassing his members, stated firmly that there would be no Tar Sands gunk passing in or through First Nations land.
I have a couple of personal observations – just why the Campbell/Clark government would grant Taseko Mines the right to start construction on its Prosperity Mine before it had been approved by the federal authorities is utterly beyond me. Talk about throwing gasoline onto the fire! This displays – as if any further proof were necessary – the insensitivity and arrogance of a government that has badly lost its way. That insensitivity and arrogance came out in the aboriginal writ hearing for an injunction against Taseko drilling and road construction – which the First Nation thankfully won this past Friday.
Leaving aside First Nations, why on earth would any government want to inflict huge environmental catastrophes on British Columbia? Is the answer to that they simply don’t give a damn about it? Is it as the late mayor of Vancouver Gerry McGeer said, “It’s only 2500 miles from Vancouver to Ottawa but it’s 25,000 miles from Ottawa to Vancouver.”?
Finally, a warning to both senior governments and the corporations involved – unpleasantness unto violence can clearly be seen ahead if these propositions are not quickly buried. Given the insensitivity and arrogance that has marked this issue, rising hostility from First Nations can be expected. I simply don’t see any common ground – it’s a dispute incapable of any “middle” ground settlement. And probably it always was.
Don’t get me wrong – I haven’t heard anything, not a soupcon of suggestion, of violence from First Nations, I simply raise the question: Given this solidarity by First Nations every inch of the way from the Tar Sands to and down the coast of BC, what other outcome can anyone with a modicum of intelligence expect if the companies, blessed by our political leaders, try to push ahead?
Postscript
Since penning the above, we get absolute proof of the bias of the Vancouver media, especially the Sun.
Friday’s paper contained a lone article, buried in the BC Business section, on the historic declaration by over 130 First Nations opposing the Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat down our perilous and beautiful coast destined for China. Saturday’s paper, by contrast, bore a full front-page story, with a whole series of related features, trumpeting, “Gitxsan Supports Enbridge Pipeline – First Nation to Generate $7 Million as Equity Partner.”
The Vancouver Sun gave its front page to ONE First Nation that had allegedly signed with Enbridge. But within hours of the story breaking on Friday, the hereditary and band chiefs of the Gitxsan had come out blasting the story and setting the record straight. Turns out it wasn’t the First Nation partnering with Enbridge, but rather a single man – one Elmer Derrick – who is not even a chief but a representative of the Nation’s treaty negotiation office! [Ed. correction: Mr. Derrick is one among some 60 hereditary chiefs of the Gitxsan, in addition to his role as a treaty negotiator]
“The Gitxsan people are outraged with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Agreement”
Contrary
to the announcement of Elmer Derrick of today’s date, the representatives of the Plaintiffs to the British Columbia Supreme Court Action No. 15150, cited as Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, oppose the Agreement. The Gitxsan plaintiffs include Hereditary Chiefs and four Gitxsan bands with a population of over 6,000 Gitxsan people; the majority of whom are House members in the Gitxsan traditional system represented by Hereditary Chief, Spookw, in the court action.
The representatives do not support Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline agreement entered into by Elmer Derrick and state “Elmer Derrick and the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. does not speak for all Gitxsan. The Gitxsan people had no knowledge of the proposed Agreement nor were they consulted.”
Oh, and one other tiny little detail: The proposed pipeline doesn’t even run through Gitxsan territory!
So 131 First Nation chiefs sign an agreement to oppose the Enbridge pipeline and tanker traffic and no front page story – yet one renegade bureaucrat supports Enbridge and is the main headline and story on the front page.
Though it hardly needs proving, here The Vancouver Sun, in the clearest of evidence, demonstrates its bias with the subtlety of a logging truck coming down a logging road.
This is a gross breach of journalistic ethics which does have a clear message – if you want a fair newspaper account of anything that fights big business, look elsewhere. The Sun is a paper that manages, by shabby news reporting, tepid columnists, and establishment-friendly use of the op-ed page, to make it clear that no matter what the subject, if corporate predators are involved, they must be looked after.
We are seriously considering cancelling The Sun and the only thing that holds us back is that we would miss Rex Morgan MD in the comic strips.
On November 24th a “roast” was held for me and it was a fantastic night.
During my speech I raised the “Ryerson” incident that was recently revived.
About 10 years ago I received a call from a young woman from the Ryerson School of Journalism who asked if I would write the main article for their “Annual”. I accepted and asked no money in return.
I asked her if she knew who I was and what I did. She assured me that she did.
Addressing myself to the graduates, I did an essay on free speech and concluded with the statement that they had all better be “ready to self censor or that they would be censored”.
Some weeks later the same young woman called me again and was obviously in some distress as she told me that my article was “unsuitable”.
“Was it badly written?” I asked.
“Not at all – it was very well written…it’s just…unsuitable.”
“To whom?” I asked.
“It was just unsuitable.”
“Why?” I asked.
“It’s just unsuitable – but we have a couple of options here. We can pay you $100.”
“I don’t want your money,” I said.
“The second option is you can do another article.”
“There is a third option,” I replied. “You can all go fuck yourselves!”
My God! One of the top schools of journalism rejects an article on free speech! If ever I needed verification of my statement, here it was!
A few weeks later I happened to be interviewing the deputy dean of Ryerson and I told him this story, off air. He protested vehemently, assuring me he would look into the matter and would get back to me in a few days.
I never heard from the man again.
Fast forward to about three weeks ago when I got an email from a young woman from Ryerson asking me if I would give her an interview for the Annual. I agreed and made a time and date in Lions Bay for the chat. She was delighted and couldn’t wait – so she said.
A few days later I received an email from her saying that the subject, being put to a lot of journalists across the country, was “your biggest disappointment in your career,” and asking me what my answer would be. I immediately replied “the censorship of my article for Ryerson School of Journalism.” That happened to be true.
She wrote back saying that this wasn’t really what she was looking for.
Perhaps a day later she sent another email.
“While I would love to conduct the interview, the issue is not that you are criticizing Ryerson or the Review (which we have no problem with), but rather that what you wish to talk about doesn’t exactly fit in with our theme. I really want to stress the fact that this is not a cancellation due to the fact that you are angry with our publication; it is because this series is specific to “most” tales. Examples from previous videos show journalists talking about their dumbest moment on a deadline, their most awkward meal, etc. And while your story is interesting to be sure, it is not a “most” something from your journalistic career. I hope you understand.”
Somehow Ryerson doesn’t quite understand that a journalist who has fought for years for free speech in this country would think that being denied it was a big disappointment.
Let me now go to 1990 when another “roast” in my honour was held. I asked that all proceeds go to the UBC School of Journalism and with some help from Jimmy Pattison, a scholarship in my name was set up and when it was handed out I was asked to make the presentation.
Of course I agreed and was asked to say a few words, which I did, warning the graduates that when they got into the Canadian media they would either self-censor or be censored.
I have never been asked back! A scholarship in my bloody name and I don’t get to make the presentation.
The upshot of this is that the Canadian media is censored in the absence of appropriate self-control by the journalist, as demonstrated twice by the #1 or #2 journalism school in the nation and repeatedly for a decade by my old alma mater, the University of British Columbia.
How does this censorship happen?
For the most part, it’s simply an understanding that some questions and some subjects for columns and articles are just “not on”.
Let’s go back to 1991-2001 when the NDP governed BC. They were, even by the standards set by the Vander Zalm government before them, pretty awful. Every political pundit in the province, including me, held their tootsies firmly to the flame for that decade. Especially expert in their shots were columnists, one of whom brought them down almost single-handedly over the “Fastcat” ferries and Mr. Clark’s naivete over a gambling licence.
Now it’s 2001 and Gordon Campbell is in power and almost in the drive home from government gives a huge tax rebate to better off folks. The bumbling and fumbling, the loss of BC Ferries, BC Rail and the virtual bankruptcy of BC Hydro made Glen Clark’s misdeeds look liked childish pranks. It’s been a decade of paying off political pals, resulting in the government that was supposed to be fiscally superior more than tripling the real provincial debt.
The zealous media that thrashed the NDP has become a snoozing, slothful syndicate of political poodles reporting only that which simply couldn’t be ignored as news; the ignoring being done on a daily basis by the same columnists who did their duty and then some during the NDP years.
I hasten to observe that I don’t blame the journalists themselves – they have families, mortgages and kids’ education to pay for and I don’t think I would have been any better if I didn’t have a legal profession to fall back on.
Probably the worst example of media favouritism is the Vancouver Sun, whose editor in charge of the editorial pages was a fellow of the Fraser Institute, a right wing (to say the least) “think tank” that churns out big business babble to a fare-the-well. If you wish an example you only need look at the number of times Mary-Ellen Walling, the fish farmers’ flack, and environmental whores like Patrick Moore, get op-ed columns with no similar access to the other side of these environmental debates.
This is not mere mental meandering but very practical – when you see what’s happening with wild salmon because of farmed fish cages, what’s happened to BC Hydro and our rivers because of sweetheart deals it’s been forced to make, what’s happened and is happening to lakes to be mined, to say nothing of the pipelines from the Tar Sands, then tankers down the coast, you must ask yourself where has the mainstream media been? The answer is short and clear: Up Big Business’ ass.
You simply cannot have a functioning democracy without a media that keeps pressure on the government as they go. That doesn’t mean that the government isn’t entitled to praise when they do good things but that their every action is assessed with a jaundiced eye as in days gone by.
It must always be remembered that the government has unlimited use of public funds with which to bombard the public with their spin.
I close with a bit of doggerel slightly altered to fit:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, (thank God!) the BC journalist But, seeing what the man will do Unbribed, there’s no occasion to
As A.J,Leibling put it “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
Joe Trasolini, long time civic politician and Mayor in Port Moody, has opted to run for the NDP in the forthcoming by-election. This is shattering news for the Campbell/Clark Liberals for a number of reasons.
First off, it was always assumed, by the Liberals at any rate, that he was a Liberal and likely their candidate in aforesaid by-election. He’s a businessman and just the sort of guy one takes to be a bit on the right of centre. To me this shows how far to the right the Campbell/Clark have swung and how well NDP leader Adrian Dix has softened his formerly pretty hard left position.
It will be said that Mr. Dix is an opportunist – show me a politician who doesn’t grasp the opportune moment and I’ll show you a failure. Moreover, the tiresome mantras of the “right” no longer appeal to many British Columbians who have seen Campbell/Clark more than triple the real provincial debt since they took over, making the NDP governments of the 90s look like paragons of fiscal prudence. They weren’t that of course but the argument that Liberals are the better money managers simply doesn’t wash. Adrian Dix has located the public pulse and has positioned the NDP to take advantage of that.
Secondly, The Liberals have not understood that it is no longer an “inclusive” party as was the Bill Bennett Socreds. Gordon Campbell was a big time admirer of Bennett but utterly lacked his sense of where the people were. Moreover the Campbell/Clark Liberals didn’t understand where Bennett stood on “people” issues. Until recently, the NDP have demonized Bill Bennett as being a hard right-winger but the new NDP sings a different song than their parents did. I remember talking to Graham Lea, a former NDP cabinet minister who laughingly said to me, “Perhaps the NDP should consider that the reason the Socreds win so often is because the voter likes them!”
There is a lot of cheeriness we environmentalists can take by Mr. Trasolini’s nomination. In saying this I don’t know Mr. Trasolini and haven’t the faintest idea what environmental opinions he has. We can, I believe, draw some inferences.
When the Campbell/Clark government were, in 2008, about to license the private power boys to dam the Pitt River and its tributaries, the barnyard droppings hit the fan – especially on the north side of the Fraser where Mr. Trasolini plies his trade – it couldn’t possibly have missed his attention and he would have seen up close how his and adjacent areas felt about this.
The other inference is easier to draw.
The environmental issues in this province – private power, fish farms, pipelines, tanker traffic, destruction of the Agricultural Land Reserve to name the most obvious – have drawn a very clear line, clear blue water you might say, between the Liberals and the NDP. Therefore the dots can easily be connected – the NDP have these issues in their playbook and Mr. Trasolini understands what their policy is.
For old-timers, this declaration by Mr. Trasolini, and its impact, is very reminiscent of 1975 when three Liberal backbenchers and one Tory crossed the floor to join Bill Bennett’s Socreds.
A businessman with a strong political record is a very big boost indeed to the NDP and fortifies my belief that these aren’t the Dave Barrett NDP but a mature centrist party that looks better and better, not just as stacked against the Liberal’s appalling record, but on their own coming of age.
This, dear friends, is a plea for help. Let me illustrate that with an anecdote.
The great American attorney, Clarence Darrow once had a client praise him asking, “How can I help?” to which he replied, “Madam, since the Phoenicians invented money there’s only been one answer to that question.”
The Common Sense Canadian needs your help, which is especially so when you see what we and other organizations are doing up against corporations and governments which have an endless amount of money. For example, in the struggle to keep our power in BC’s hands we are up against General Electric and both the federal and provincial governments. With fish farms we’re fighting both senior governments and an industry which is immense.
The same applies with pipelines and tanker traffic – the enemy is both governments and endless corporation lucre.
Our need is magnified many times over by the corporatization of the major media.
We at the Common Sense Canadian also back, wherever we can, those fighting to save agricultural land and prime wildlife preserves. There are many valiant people and organizations with which we ally ourselves and they with us.
The leadership provided by Alexandra Morton, for one example, has had an extraordinary impact; as has the leadership of Donna Passmore, Rex Weyler, Jennifer Lash and Independent MLA Vicki Huntington. In naming these names I must say that there are many more, like the tireless Joe Foy and Gwen Barlee of the Wildlife Committee and indeed valiant fighters all around this province.
Now let me make this clear – we are not overwhelmed by the forces of environmental evil. Indeed we relish the fight; we’d prefer not to have a fight but if that’s what the bastards want, that’s what they’ll get. Most of us have been up against these forces for years and we know there will be many scars to come.
We at the Common Sense Canadian see ourselves as an outlet for others which is why we make space available for people to express their views. I would urge you to look at the quantity and quality of regular contributors. I assure you that you’ll be impressed by those who regularly contribute – for free on a regular basis. We also encourage others to pitch a blog through our pages.
In the absence of a mainstream media we try to take their place.
The task we face is bigger than groups like us, and you who help us, have ever faced. The governments and large corporations are coming at us on a massive mission that will scar our wonderful province for all time.
Every time we blink another army appears – recently it’s been the “frackers” who, going deep in the ground, with a massive use of water which they pollute beyond repair in the process, to capture huge quantities of gas not available through traditional drilling methods. This hasn’t been presented to us the citizens who need to know the answers to many questions; where do you get the water? Is that water that could and should be going to farmers and hydro electric facilities? What happens to that water after its been blasted with great force during the “fracking” process? Does it get into the water table and become unsafe to drink?
These questions are wrapped up in the issue of Site “C”. Quite apart from the normal and serious environmental concerns, is this power going to be delivered to fracking operations, coal mines and the Tar Sands so that we use an environmental nightmare to assist the biggest polluters on the planet?
These and many other questions should be determined by our elected officials after thorough consultation with all citizens and after a thorough airing in the House of Commons and the BC Legislature.
The environmental processes in place are a terrible disgrace. I’ve said this before but I’d almost prefer a root canal without anaesthetic than go to another. They are stacked. with all awkward questions being “out of order”, complete with a corporation-government cosiness that makes you want to vomit.
We can and do contribute to the common cause – just look at the great work my colleague Damien Gillis does with his camera and his insightful articles he does while I use my lungs and computer to try to get the message out. (To paraphrase the great Robert Benchley “it took me 15 years to learn that I couldn’t write but by that time I was too famous to quit.”)
As mentioned earlier, we the citizens face a force of environmental degradation, to the immense profit of outsiders who thus are unconcerned about environmental and, yes spiritual, matters with only the people as our soldiers. That won’t deter any of us but you can keep us in the fight with financial help.
Please join us, if you can, at my roast on Thursday at the Wise Hall 1882 Adanac Street where for $35 ($40 at the door) you can expect some very well known people give me the mickey as I enter my 9th decade.
Also, watch this coming Monday for the start of our Common Sense Canadian membership drive for– as we unveil our hip new t-shirt that promises to the must-have fashion item of 2012!
A version of this article first appeared on the website of Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russian online paper.
Let me explain the title to this article. Canada’s overriding mission, according to its constitution. is “Peace, Order and Good Government”, yet I see violence ahead and It’s all about the Tar Sands in Alberta, the worst polluting project in the world, and proposed pipelines from them to the British Columbia ports of Kitimat and Vancouver.
As an inseparable companion is the Keystone XL pipeline from the Tar Sands to Houston, Texas.
Sniffing anxiously around is China which has $75 BILLION invested in the oil pit.
It must be noted that in the middle of the mess that’s a-brewing are First Nations, who, in contradistinction to many aboriginals elsewhere, carry a lot of legal weapons arising out of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and their rights to unceded territories in BC, and it may be within that power that they can stop pipelines – and their stated goal is to do just that.
The proposed pipelines to Kitimat through BC will be sited through one of the last real wilderness areas in the world. There are two pipelines – one to carry the Tar Sands gunk, officially called bitumen, and the other to take back to Alberta the condensate which is mixed with the Bitumen to allow it to flow through the pipeline. Enbridge, the pipeline company, has an appalling record on spills and time taken to respond.
Of huge importance is the shipping of this gunk down the coast of BC, arguably the prettiest and most treacherous coast in the world.
First Nations, plural, have unceded land where they have traditionally fished and hunted for centuries. All along the pipelines and down the coast the various nations have said, “no way”. And as to the tanker traffic, the huge Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 remains burned in their memories.
Meanwhile, on the south coast of BC, another pipeline battle is mounting around KinderMorgan’s plans to turn Vancouver into a major shipping port for the Tar Sands. The company wants to boost the existing Trans-Mountain Pipeline, designed to supply the Lower Mainland with oil for local uses, from 300,000 barrels to 700,000 barrels a day, with hundreds of Suezmax tankers shipping toxic bitumen through the Salish Sea en route to Asia and the United States.
The stakes of this issue were ratcheted up a notch when the First Nation in whose traditional territory the pipeline terminates and the tankers depart from – the Tsleil-Waututh (“People of the Inlet”) – took a strong stance against the expansion of this pipeline and tanker traffic through their waters.
Up until recently, KinderMorgan may have figured it was going to slide its pipeline under the radar, while protests raged against Enbridge and TransCanada (the company behind the Keystone XL). But it looks very much now as though they won’t be so lucky.
Hanging over these proposals is the uncomfortable truth that spills from the pipelines and tankers are not a threat but a reality waiting to happen. On the tanker issue, for example, Environment Canada, scarcely full of Greenies, says that there will be a spill of 1,000 barrels every four years and a 10,000 BBL spill in 9.
Here’s the chilling fact: not only are the spills a certainty, no matter what size the spill the damage will be horrific. The Enbridge pipeline passes through Caribou feeding grounds and over and through a great many fish bearing rivers and streams including three major salmon spawning rivers.
I would suggest readers go to this site to see the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazo River in Michigan and note that Enbridge’s record on this spill is typical and it hasn’t been cleaned up 15 months later (and never will be). Remember, this spill happened in a populated area, not the wilds of British Columbia.
Let’s take a look at the Keystone XL pipeline to Houston. Readers have no doubt read about the rallies including movie stars in front of the White House. President Obama has postponed the decision until 2013.
Here’s the crunch – this postponement means that huge pressure now will be mounted against by the government of Canada and within hours of the President’s announcement the Canadian Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty said, “it may mean we have to move quickly to ensure that we can export oil to Asia through British Columbia”. (Cynics like me note that the formal environmental hearings of Mr Flaherty’s government have scarcely begun, confirming what we always knew – these hearings are a farce.)
That is a declaration of war.
I am a peaceful man who hates violence so much he turned off the first Harry Potter movie. I have lived in, and loved my province for a lifetime of nearly 80 years and I can tell you that there’s going to be violence and that I will be lying in front of the first bulldozer. The largest of the First Nations along the proposed pipeline has contemptuously turned down a 10% piece of the action. Unless that’s just part of a dickering process –I don’t think so – First Nations will pose a huge actual and political problem for the Federal Government.
Moreover, it’s not just the pipelines that will be resisted – I don’t believe that coastal First Nations can be bought off and the pipelines are useless without the tanker traffic.
What President Obama and Finance Minister Flaherty have done is to all but ensure violence. Obama’s postponement until 2013 really means more like 2014 since the Keystone XL people know that they must, as a minimum, come up with an alternative to avoid the environmental concerns with their present plans. Trans-Canada is already trying to push the project forward with a few minor tweaks, but that may be wishful thinking as the have to get by the growing numbers of environmentally sensitive people who will have been emboldened by Obama’s action. In the meantime the pressure on BC will substantially increase.
This brings in China. It’s not just the money, although even to China, $75 billion is a hell of a lot of dough; what’s also at stake is China’s need for oil. What will China do? It sure as hell isn’t going to just turn around and find another pen to play in. Ironically, the BC premier has just been in China trying to sell them BC lumber and BC coal!
Let’s pause and catch our breath. Are we not supposed to be weaning our way off the use of fossil fuels? Are we not supposed to be finding alternative sources for our power and fuel needs? Yet here we have the Premier of British Columbia flogging coal, for God’s sake! And we have the national finance minister unable to wait to destroy our province in order to jack up production and sales of the worst fossil fuel of the lot!
It would be folly and unhelpful for me to predict how China will deal with the US but clearly British Columbia can be and will be hit hard.
Doesn’t that mean that Canadians will buckle under pressure?
That’s what Mr. Flaherty hope, but I believe he’s whistling past the graveyard. He doesn’t know or understand British Columbians.
Back in 1992 the federal government held a national referendum on proposed changes to the Constitution which we were told would solve all our problems with Quebec. One of then-Prime Minister Mulroney’s senior aides told me and my radio audience that if the referendum failed, the country would immediately collapse. In the face of extreme forces such as 100% of business and 100% of labour, plus both the federal and provincial governments, British Columbians turned it down by just under 70%! Every single constituency (the votes were counted according to provincial election boundaries) turned this deal down and it was fascinating to see that every ethnic area voted just as the rest of British Columbians did. In short, British Columbia is very different than other provinces – it doesn’t accept threats.
There is always the danger that the forces for expanding the Tar Sands to Asia will abandon the highly controversial Enbridge pipeline for the lesser known expansion of the KinderMorgan line to a tanker terminal in Burnaby, next to Vancouver.
If that’s the plan, the war simply shifts battlefields. And the First Nations and their supporters have already signaled their intention to fight back.
Take it from me, as they sing in The Music Man, “There’s Trouble in River City” – a heap of trouble.
The Common Sense Canadian has been going well over the past year-plus and this seems to be a good moment to reflect on what we’ve done, not done, and will do.
First please understand that we are just two people. Our funding is very limited and, to speak boldly, we need considerably more. We’re deeply grateful to those who have donated and special thanks to those who have signed on for a regular donation. We’ll be launching a special promotion next week for November and December, encouraging more of you to become monthly sustaining contributors – even $5 a month helps, as it’s funding we can count on into the future.
Second, one way you can immediately be of help is to attend my 80th birthday Roast on November 24th next – tickets cost $35 in advance ($25 for students) and all proceeds go to the Common Sense Canadian. (Incidentally, the name derives partly from Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense which sparked the American Revolution. Paine is a great hero to Damien and me.)
The most critical issue we now face comes from the success of this offering. Our “hits” and regular emails from readers tell us that we’re making contact with a large number of British Columbians and that has become a unique “problem” – more and more people want us to get involved with the war they’re having with the establishment over an environmental issue in which they are heavily involved. And, in a moment I’ll tell you what we’re going to do to assist these wonderful folks in BC and Canada.
For historical reasons Damien and I find ourselves with three issues that dominate our time – Fisheries, private power projects (IPPs) and power projects generally, and pipelines/tankers. This by no means dulls our concern about other issues such as the Gateway Project and its many facets, mining issues such as Raven coal project on Vancouver Island and the so-called Prosperity Mine and other issues that so many of our courageous citizens are involved in.
We have set up a page called “Your Voice”, where we welcome op-ed blogs on issues we don’t regularly cover (you can read our first entry there now – a piece from David Williams, President of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley, on the cultural impacts of the proposed Prosperity Mine). This column will be accessible from our home page and also included in our weekly mail-outs to readers. I want to emphasize this – we take all these issues seriously and just because a blog is published doesn’t mean that we won’t help in other ways as well when the opportunity arises.
We reserve the right to edit for errors and length as well as issues of good taste and defamation – and we can’t guarantee that we’ll publish every piece. But if you have an issue you’re dealing with and would like to inform more people about it, please contact us with your proposed op-ed.
Damien and I welcome this opportunity to expand the horizons of the Common Sense Canadian.
We must be our own media in this province of anaemic mainstream media who peddle, uncritically, the establishment line.
There are two mining stories out of last week in Lotusland.
For openers, let’s deal with “Prosperity” Lake which, before the corporate flacks got involved, was called Fish Lake.
The short story is that this is a mine prospect held by Taseko Mines. While the Provincial government approved it, it was turned down by the feds who then gave the company time to put in a new proposal, which they did. With the speed of light the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency received the new application last February and hasn’t yet decided anything. This delay brought a fire and brimstone editorial from the Fraser Institute’s house paper, the Vancouver Sun, which threw unsourced “facts” at us, including a promise of 71,000 jobs with 5,400 new residents for the nearby town of Williams Lake. We’re not told where those figures come from but clearly they’re from the large sack of extravagant statements the Fraser Institute keeps on hand for whenever their definition of capitalism is called to account.
Since the Sun doesn’t state otherwise, we must assume that the 71,000 jobs are for construction of the mine, which is preposterous. Whatever jobs it does take will, based upon long experience, come from outside the province. And are these 5,400 new arrivals necessary to run a mine?
Mr. Mihlar, the Fraser Institute’s editor of The Sun, the think tank’s poodle, should visit an operation of a modern, computerized mine before throwing numbers around.
A neat line in the editorial refers to outside agitators, I can only hope that I and fellow environmentalists are amongst them. The thought that environmentalists are outside agitators brings a sense of deep pride; how rewarding it is to be compared to the “freedom fighters” in the American South in the Sixties.
It’s so much like the Fraser Institute’ poodle, the Sun, to pretend they are not “outside agitators”.
The Sun’s call for putting the Taseko Prosperity Mine on the fast track is code for “approve at once” and ignores the fact that First Nations people and we outside agitators have yet to be heard from on the new proposition.
If I were able to cross-examine the company and their flacks my question would be: Why didn’t you submit your amended proposal in the first place? (The proposal existed, in fact, but the company insisted it wasn’t “economically viable”, before suddenly changing its tune the day after the first proposal was rejected). Can we assume that if you’re turned down for proposal #2, you have “proposition 3” in your ass pocket?
It’s interesting that Mr. Milhar doesn’t deal with the environmental concerns that remain, with attention be paid to the threats of damage to other waters especially to migrating salmon streams. Even though the company’s latest proposal seeks to avoid destroying Fish Lake, it still threatens Fish Creek, Taseko Lake and the Taseko River – important salmon habitat that eventually connects with the Fraser River.
It’s also interesting that the Fraser Institute/Sun combination believes that where development and the environment clash development must carry the day.
This infomercial of Mr. Milhar should help us start the great debate, namely, what do British Columbians want to be – one of the blessed lands where commercial intrusion is secondary to environmental preservation or a place where when a conflict occurs, industry holds all the trumps?
Then there’s the Boss Power case – a uranium property which has cost the taxpayers $30 million to settle. If the Liberals had continued the no uranium policy brought into force by the excellent Environment Minister in 1979 (name provided upon demand) this issue would not have come up.
As Mike Smyth of the Province stated in a column last week, this case has the same stench the BC Rail case had – gross negligence of staggering proportions that, as with the BC Rail case, best not let a judge with an open courtroom sniff around.
There is another angle to this story not given sufficient attention.
First a bit of background.
Ministers have the right to have their policies implemented by the public servants however much they may not want to; what ministers cannot do is interfere with a public servant who’s doing as a statute compels him to do. Registrars under various different statutes are usually under a statute which sets the rules he must administer – he has no options.
For a minister to try to influence the administration of a statutory obligation would, in a decent government, be forced to resign.
In this case the company was making an application to The Chief Inspector of Mines for a permit to drill. The chief inspector has a statutory obligation to receive and pass judgments – ministerial interference is highly improper.
The then Minister of Mines, Kevin Krueger, instructed the Inspector to ignore the company’s application to drill. This is so improper that the minister should have resigned or, failing that, been fired forthwith.
What this case shows is that the Campbell/Clark government has the morality of an alley cat (with apologies to the feline community). Read alongside the BC Rail cover-up we see tawdry, sloppy ministers with no clue about what ministerial impropriety means and with a contempt for process an integral part of their modus operandi.
These two stories, read together, show an alarming disinterest in real values and respect for the public’s right to know the facts and the ability to be heard. The Vancouver Sun editorial, when you think on it, takes the breath away – process means let’s get on with it! Corporation “facts” must be considered holy writ and the process an ill-disguised sham – a quick, pro forma minor nuisance.
British Columbians must decide what sort of place they and what values they hold. And since the next major decisions will be pipelines and tankers, the sooner the better.
There are two stories about pipelines this week – the first was a Vancouver Sun article October 25. Here it is, in part:
Sixteen business and labour leaders have signed an open letter to British Columbians urging their support for natural gas and oil pipeline proposals across the northern half of the province which they say are needed to link Canada’s energy resources and B.C.’s economic future more closely to Asian economies.
The letter marks the first public relations campaign aimed at swaying opinion province wide towards energy projects in the North. Up until now, only regional support groups have been formed, such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Alliance, which is actively supporting Enbridge’s $5.5-billion Alberta-to-Kitimat pipeline project in communities along the pipeline route.
The letter was written by former federal transportation minister Chuck Strahl. Signatories include former international trade minister David Emerson, the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, the Business Council of B.C., the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the country’s largest industrial association.
As for the second story, on October 24 I attended the Jack Webster Awards dinner where Kevin Redvers of CTV did a story called Black Blood – Tainted Land. What a sight with dying caribou showing the results of an oil spill two years ago and how the black ooze is still there with the consequent loss of a staple part of the diet of First Nations.
Clearly the business and labour people don’t care a fiddler’s fart about the environment and any concerns they might have are a carefully disguised secret.
The people of BC have a choice to make – at least they would if we had democracy in this province. It is a clear either/or – either we follow the union and business leaders and have the certainty of oil spills or we don’t.
We will have spills – there are no ifs ands or buts about it. The federal Department of Environment, scarcely made up of wild eyed environmentalists, says this about tanker traffic out of Kitimat – there will be a 1000 barrel spill every four years, a 10,000 spill every 9 years! One can only imagine what the odds are for a spill from pipelines!
These pipelines traverse over 1,000 kilometres of wilderness which, amongst other things, contains three of the most important fisheries we have. The pipelines are impossible to patrol and any spills will be difficult and time-consuming to deal with and, as Kevin Redvers has demonstrated, the damage is permanent.
Moreover, BC makes dick-all out of this – we are simply the right-of-way.
This, then, is the bottom line: We will trade our wilderness for infinitesimal rental money with certain environmental catastrophes. Don’t believe for a moment that pipeline companies will “minimize” the risk. Even if that were true, which it isn’t, the consequences are so terrible that this feeble statement is an insult to our intelligence. Moreover, the jobs will be short term and will be mostly from out of province.
Please believe it – the spills will come, our rivers and wilderness will be damaged and the damage will be huge and permanent.
The Campbell/Clark government must hold a referendum and let British Columbia citizens decide the fate of their favoured and much loved province.
