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.

The Silence of the Mainstream Media on Private Power, Fish Farms

WATER, ,
Share

I sat in my hotel room in London on a recent vacation, reading the comments on my last article in thetyee.ca in which I had congratulated the Vancouver Sun for printing an op-ed piece by Dr. Marvin Shaffer of SFU which stated the elementary truth that the government is forcing BC Hydro to pay more for private power than they can make it for themselves or sell it for. The general consensus seemed to be that I’d gone soft in the head and that we need not assume that Postmedia would suddenly be printing the truth on this subject.
 
I then looked at the reaction to a similar article I wrote on this website and thought – there having been no response from any of the media I had critiqued – that the critics were right that I was naïve to suppose that any of the columnists, reporters or Postmedia editors gave a damn, and that I was terminally naïve to think that the Sun or Province would publish any more op-ed pieces criticizing the Clark government on any matters which could hurt their chances in the snap election Ms Clark seems determined to call.
 
Thus I think, on reflection, that they are right. This is not going to happen. We will not be seeing analytic articles by Vaughn Palmer or Mike Smyth; nor, lamentably from Stephen Hume. They won’t be writing anything terribly troublesome for fish farmers even though their flacks and apologists seem to have little difficulty getting op-ed pieces and even news stories printed. I see no indication that the government bankrupting BC Hydro has caught their eye – or if it has, that they would have the editorial freedom to write about it.
 
Some time back I suggested that these and other writers self-censored for the simple reason that they otherwise won’t be printed. The editor of one of these papers phoned me whining that I had been unfair and asked if I really thought he told his writers what to write?
 
When he denied that he did this I asked why, then, they never had explored the questions I and others had raised on these matters. He replied that what they wrote about was their affair. I can’t prove what I say but only point out that most editors I have worked for and work for now have suggested a topic that seems important. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
 
I might add that when papers and radio stations didn’t like the opinions I wrote on or spoke about, I got fired – often, I might add.
 
Perhaps I should take that editor at his word. Could it just be that they haven’t considered the rape of the fish farms and the ruin of our rivers and the accompanying bankruptcy of BC Hydro as real issues affecting the public interest?
 
But I can’t do that for it would be accusing Postmedia and their writers of being stupid and I know that they aren’t. In fact, quite to the contrary they are highly intelligent and excellent writers.
 
I owe them one more chance to respond. Thus I then ask Mike Smyth, Vaughn Palmer and other writers why, over the past several years, they have not written about the fish farm issue? ALL the independent scientists have excoriated the industry and the issues, yet the closest Postmedia (Canwest in drag) has printed are the fish farmers’ formal flack and the utterly discredited environmental turncoat Patrick Moore.
 
UBC’s Dr. Daniel Pauly, one of the world’s acknowledged top marine scientists has said that the scientific debate is over on the sea lice question, yet the fish farmer flack seems to get space on demand with nary a dissenting word,
 
I then ask why haven’t Mr. Palmer or Mr. Smyth – or any other Postmedia columnist – examined the BC Hydro scandal? Never mind the gross environmental degradation caused by private power dams (they prefer to call them “weirs”, in their Orwellian  “New Speak”) and the wreckage of clear cuts for roads and transmission lines; leave aside for a moment the fish they kill and the habitat they destroy. Simply answer this: why haven’t you written on the issue that Dr. Shaffer and other academics and economists have raised – namely that this government in Victoria has forced BC Hydro into contracts with large corporations under which each transaction hits Hydro with a huge loss?
 
Never mind that the entire Energy Policy is based on utter falsehoods; leave aside the Orwellian claim that private power is “clean and green” – simply address the points made by Dr. Shaffer which fortify those of his colleague Dr. John Calvert in his formidable account of the whole situation, the book Liquid Gold.
 
Surely any fiscal theory that you can “buy high and sell low” and still make money bears some examination. The “Fast Ferries” issue of the NDP days, which Mr. Palmer so bravely and thoroughly exposed pales into insignificance when compared to the Campbell cum Clark Energy Policy.
 
Erik Andersen, a highly regarded economist specializing in government financing, makes the obvious point that BC Hydro would go broke under the Liberal Policy were it not for the fact that they can pass their losses onto the poor ratepayers (that’s us folks. In fact we get it twice, once at home, then as a cost pass through from the industry whose power we subsidize more and more).
 
A modest request to Mr. Palmer, Mr. Smyth et al.: prove that I’m wrong to suggest you self-censor. Do it with some of the incisive journalism, take-no-prisoners investigations for which you have great reputations, centred this time on the fish farms and the BC Hydro issues. Failing that, surely you owe an explanation why you won’t!
 
I can assure you both that I would rather be proved wrong and see you bring your talents to bear examining these issues carefully…than right.
 
Somehow, though, I think I’m right and that freedom of speech is something you are prepared to compromise for personal security.
 
Pity.
 

Share

Why the Precautionary Principle Should but Doesn’t Apply in BC

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

There is a reason that we who want to save our environment are losing the war and may lose it outright unless we gird up our loins and fight to the death, politically speaking.
 
The reason is simple: no government set in authority over us will apply the “Precautionary Principle” (despite Canada’s international commitment to uphold it) to undertakings in the environment and thus they permit despoilers to get away with, literally, murder.
 
Here is the principle as generally stated. “The precautionary principle …states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”
 
This is what this means to British Columbians – the Precautionary Principle prevails, or rather should prevail, in the following cases: Fish farming, power projects, threats to the atmosphere, pipelines and tanker traffic. It also should apply, in my opinion, to highway and bridge construction.
 
In fact, in each of the above cases the onus has rested not on the potential despoiler but on the general public. This turnabout provides the despoiler with a one line defence which runs, “You don’t really believe that crap do you?” That becomes an effective reply to the strongest scientific argument – it’s really a thinly disguised “Big Lie” technique.
 
Let’s look at how this has been applied.
 
For over a decade the persistent and courageous Alexandra Morton has led a scientific investigation into the adverse – to put it mildly – impact of sea lice from fish farms on migrating wild salmon. Her studies have been peer-reviewed (that is to say reviewed by other scientists and published in recognized scientific journals) by virtually every scientist in the world who deals in this area. Moreover many fish biologists have carried out their own peer reviewed studies which have concluded, as Ms. Morton has, that the impact from sea lice from fish farms is enormously destructive.
 
What have industry and the government done?
 
Through discredited former environmentalists like Patrick Moore and industry flacks like Mary Ellen Walling they’ve simply denied the findings and distorted the evidence hoping, and often succeeding, to be able to ask the public, “You don’t really believe that crap do you?”…”Would you deny British Columbians jobs because of unproved charges by some so-called scientist?”
 
NOT BEING REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SAFETY OF WHAT THEY DO, THEY ARE ABLE TO SIT BACK AND RAISE DOUBTS ON NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!
 
The ad hominem attack on a scientist by an industry or, sadly, government flack counts for more than properly researched science. Thus has the proper method of determining environmental safety been subverted to high priced PR flackery.
 
Thus the silly but effective question, “You don’t really believe that crap?” trumps science.
 
This industry/government defence has a slightly different twist when it comes to the private/public power debate. Here the government – wonders never cease – actually admits that some environmental harm could come from gutting rivers, diverting the water with dams and clear-cutting for roads and transmission lines; so they convene environmental hearings and in doing so don’t follow the “precautionary principle” – heaven forefend! – but the political principle which states simply, “Never hold a hearing unless you know what the result will be.” Consequently these hearings are convened by the company in a location least likely to be conducive to large crowds and the government fixes the result by making it out of order to ask any questions about the desirability of the scheme in the first place!
 
In short, by the time the public has a say, it’s a done deal and the only issue left is the terms of reference for the “scientific” investigation by – hold your breath now – the government that has already approved the deal in principle, and the “environmental department” and paid consultants of the company!
 
When Dr. John Calvert, Dr. Marvin Shaffer, noted scientists, economist Erik Andersen, environmentalists Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Damien Gillis or Rafe Mair lay before the public the facts on how the Liberals destroy the environment to make power BC Hydro must buy at a huge loss, putting BC Hydro in mortal peril, the company and government need only ask, “Do you believe that crap from those environmental maniacs?” – and the job is done.
 
With pipelines and oil tankers the story takes a slightly different tack. There have been so many spills and ruptures that neither government nor industry can deny that they happen – they would like to but even their PR flacks have some credibility limitations. The propositions put forward by the companies and their hired governments are even more breathtaking for they say that the risks are “reasonable” or “slight” or “manageable” – and outweighed by the stated (and grossly exaggerated) benefits.
 
Think on that for a second and several facts pop up. For one, if you are going to do something forever with no limitations on how often or how long you will do it, a spill or a leak is no longer a risk but a certainty waiting to happen.
 
Then comes the inevitable conclusion: when it happens it will be devastating! Every oil spill or leak is!
 
Thus the emollient offerings by company and government are met by the certainty that their project will be a major catastrophe, yet the cries of those who know that a catastrophe will certainly occur are drowned out by the cry, “Do you believe that crap from those people who don’t want any ‘progress’ and who hate industry?”
 
The absolute certainty of environmental catastrophe is met by bought-and-paid-for government and industry flacks who pour it on with the basic theme that “life is risky; we must take risks to develop and grow and create jobs and are you going to listen to that shit from eco-freaks like Rex Weyler?”
 
Let me ask of you this question: who of you, after the disaster, will agree it was a “risk” worth taking, especially when you’ve known in your tummy all along that it was no risk but a dead certainty?
 
The matter must be fairly stated – development in this province is done by corporations who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for the environment, and why should they? Their obligation is to make money for their shareholders, so why would we expect them to care? If they did care they would be in breach of their shareholders’ trust.
 
This industry finances the Liberal and Conservative governments – make no mistake on that account. Those governments have an obligation to repay that debt and can be counted upon to do so.
 
There is an interesting sidelight to all this. Opponents to the Liberal government either have a history – or have been painted as having a history of incompetence. That’s the rap and the Liberals play it like a finely tuned Stradivarius. 
 
Is that to say that the government that has privatized BC Rail, forced BC Hydro to the brink of bankruptcy, run up huge deficits and nearly doubled the provincial debt while turning over our outdoors to large, mostly foreign corporations is to be seen as competent? A government that lies about its budget, the HST and destroys our environment is a good government?
 
I had plenty to say about the NDP governments in their 1991-2001 decade and very little of it complimentary. But compared to this Liberal bunch they were paragons of fiscal probity. Whatever index you like – corporate profits, economic growth, provincial debts and contributing deficits, employment – you name it – the NDP are clear winners and you only need read what the far right wing Canadian Taxpayers Federation has to say for the proof.
 
We, the people of British Columbia must, in my view, ponder the consequences of more of the same from this Liberal government: ruined rivers and streams, tar sands bitumen spilled on our virgin lands and in our oceans, our soul – the Pacific Salmon – destroyed, our coveted power company ransacked by private and mostly foreign corporations, our farmland and sensitive habitat ravaged; a government that promises more of the same and defends itself only by defaming those who are critical of it. A government that had to change the law to avoid balancing its books.
 
If you stop and examine the Liberal’s rationale for its uncaring attitude towards the environment, it fails and fails badly in economic terms. Their policies not only are ruinous to our environment, but they provide virtually no permanent jobs, bring little, if any, revenue into the provincial coffers and leave behind damage that will be with us forever.
 
Fish farms don’t produce jobs, only a handful of caretakers. The same applies to private power corporations after short term construction; pipelines and oil tankers not only don’t provide jobs, their profits go out of province. In short, the vaunted Liberal talent for enhancing the economy doesn’t do that – it enhances Alberta’s revenues and those of the huge corporations whose ads tell us how much they care, while leaving permanent destruction for us who live in its path.
 
All elections are crap shoots and all politicians disappoint. We are, however, looking at an opposition that has a much strengthened and experienced front bench; it is an opposition that has put a great deal of its political cant behind it while retaining what I see as critical sensitivity to our traditions and the legacy we leave; it is also an opposition that has learned bitter lessons from its past.
 
It is possible to have social sensitivity and prosperity – in fact the latter, if it’s to last, must have the former. That the NDP have learned that destruction of our environment doesn’t bring prosperity is surely a plus.
 
Looking at the choice that faces us I can see no sensible alternative to throwing out the Liberals – and the sooner, the better.

Share

Coleman, Palmer on Hydro: Ignoring the $50 Billion Elephant in Room

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada,
Share

This will be harsh, I warn you. In preparation I urge you to read Dr. Marvin Shaffer’s (SFU) article in the Vancouver Sun last Monday.
 
My position today is that the Vancouver Sun’s lead columnist, whom I once greatly admired, Vaughn Palmer, has abandoned his journalistic duty; while Energy Minister Rich Coleman, whom I had come to regard as a man of integrity based upon his work for homeless, is a political hack unworthy of his “Honourable”.
 
I do not say these things lightly and ask you to be the judge.
 
The subject is BC Hydro and its proposed rate hikes, which Coleman has vowed to examine closely and Mr. Palmer has spent his last two columns on.
 
Here is one of the salient facts that stands out in Dr Shaffer’s presentation:
 
“The fact that the electricity BC Hydro is being forced to buy is costing more than double what the electricity is worth, now and in the foreseeable future, does not seem to matter. The legislation is absolute. BC Hydro must acquire this extra electricity supply whatever its impact on costs and rates” (it’s also power created, for the most part, when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. – RM)
 
Dr. Shaffer is a man whose credentials and honesty are above reproach – to say that he is highly respected goes without saying. Great credit to the Sun’s editors for printing his op-ed.
 
This madness had escaped the notice, evidently, of the Minister and Palmer. Is that because the amount is small?
 
The amount, today and climbing, is approximately $50 Billion dollars – which sum is carefully concealed – but because of an earlier statement by Coleman has been verified and is also verified by Erik Andersen, a highly respected (non-political, I hastily add) economist who specializes in assessing public finances.
 
Vaughn Palmer and Rich Coleman are “investigating the rate increases BC Hydro claims it needs” by overlooking $50 Billion.
 
How much is $50 Billion?
 
It is 50,000 million dollars. If you live in Kamloops or Kelowna every one of your neighbours has $500,000 in the bank!
 
This amount is owed by BC Hydro to private power corporations, paid as it presently stands, at over $1 billion (1000 million) a year and rising, for energy they don’t need – at twice or more its value. And Mr. Coleman and Palmer slough it off! Don’t even mention it!
 
And who do you think is going to pay this?
 
Three guesses and the first two don’t count!
 
This is, in effect, what we’re all doing as ratepayers – subsidizing huge corporations like General Electric to destroy our rivers for power we can’t, for the most part use, for which we must pay twice or more what its worth.
 
The net effect of this is that BC Hydro is no longer able to pay its annual handsome dividend to our government. BC Hydro, were it in the private sector and unable to pass its losses onto the public, would now be headed for bankruptcy protection. Did you get that? The only way BC Hydro can avoid bankruptcy is this: soak British Columbians with higher and higher rates!
 
The dots are easy to connect – because of government policy we pay General Electric, Ledcor and other similarly small “mom-and-pop operators” to make power that BC Hydro must (under the take-or-pay contracts) pay for when they don’t need it, or export it at a huge loss – all the while destroying our rivers and the ecosystems they support.
 
I don’t impugn the motives of Mr. Palmer or the strange silence from the pen of Mike Smyth – I simply don’t know how and why they would not do the same kind of work on the Liberal government as Palmer did with NDP premier Glen Clark and his fast ferries.
 
The motives of Mr. Coleman can be easily stated: he’s a politician prepared to say anything – or remain silent on anything – to avoid confessing government error.
 
I issue this warning to Christy Clark: the chickens are coming home to roost and soon. It’s now too late to avoid this in time for a snap election.
 
Premier W.A.C. Bennett created BC Hydro so that British Columbians could use their massive hydro power to compete for industry and until Gordon Campbell came along it worked brilliantly. Now it’s in tatters with BC Hydro pleading with the public to fill its begging bowl.
 
Our government, lying through its teeth*, has not only destroyed our rivers and their ecologies, it has subsidized large corporations to fleece us, destroy one of the world’s finest power companies while paying them billions of our dollars as a bonus!
 
Surely the very least we must conclude is that Palmer is not worth reading and this government is unfit to govern.
 
*Please watch this 2 min video of Colin Hansen spewing falsehood upon falsehood, in his presentation as then Finance Minister of the Liberal government’s Energy Policy.
 
 
 

Share

Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate

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

I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
 
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
 
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
 
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
 
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.

  • The private Energy Policy will continue
  • Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
  • BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
  • BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
  • New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
  • Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
  • New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
  • The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
  • The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
  • The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
  • Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
  • Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
  • Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue

The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
 
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
 
Can she be stopped?
 
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
 
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
 
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
 
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
 
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.

Share

The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today

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

I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
 
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
 
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
 
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
 
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:

  • It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
  • There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
  • The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
  • There is no reasonable alternative.
  • It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.

The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
 
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
 
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
 
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
 
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly.  Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
 
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
 
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
 
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
 
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
 
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
 
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
 
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
 
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
 
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:

  • First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
  • Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
  • Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
     
  • Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
    protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
    with the “merits” of the project.)
  • Fifth, the protests continue.
  • Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”. 

Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
 
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
 
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.

Share

Site C: Simple Questions & Answers

Hydropower, WATER, ,
Share

We at the Common Sense Canadian will be dealing with the Site C project in some depth and from the outset we would like to acknowledge the tremendous work and research done by our colleague, well known economist Erik Andersen, who cut his professional teeth dealing with government spending.
 
I would like to test a theory of mine, namely, that the Site C project does not pass the “simple question” test.
 
Energy Minister Rich Coleman has stated that we need Site C because BC Hydro says our power needs will grow by 40% over the next 20 years
 
Given that BC Hydro’s projections from a decade ago proved to be exaggerated by 30%, as this report by Mr. Andersen clearly demonstrates…
 
Simple Question: why should we trust them now when they envision our needs rising 40% in the coming years?
 
Simple Answer: We don’t – and in a moment I’ll ask some more questions to show why that is.
 
The government has maintained that the private river power scheme will look after all our needs and, indeed, the estimates given show that just two of the largest ones together would exceed Site C’s output.
 
SQ: Why then do we need Site C?
 
SA: We don’t. But what Coleman’s statement does is clearly admit that the private power schemes which are or will be destroying our rivers will not produce power for BC Hydro; they cannot do so because most of their power comes during the spring run-off (when we need it least), so they cannot provide the year round power that Site C will.
 
Coleman again states that this will be clean, green energy.
 
SQ: How can you call a project that floods 5400 hectares of farmland and drives away the wildlife “clean and green”?
 
SA: You cannot, anymore than you can call private projects that destroy a river’s ecology “clean and green”. This is Orwellian “Newspeak”.
 
Coleman says the project will cost $7.9 billion.
 
SQ: Who are you kidding? When was the last time a government mega-project came in anywhere near on budget?
 
SA: When Noah built his ark…The Highway 1/Port Mann Bridge widening project was supposed to be $1.5
billion at first, then it was over $2 billion; now it’s $3.5 billion –
and we haven’t seen the end of it. The infamous convention centre budget doubled to nearly a billion dollars by its completion. Site C’s budget, meanwhile, just shot
up from $6 billion to $8 billion over the past year!
 
Given that the government has forced BC Hydro to make unconscionable, cozy contracts with private power producers (IPPs) which will now cost over the next 20-40 years some $50 billion…
 
SQ: Where is the money for Site C coming from?
 
SA: Surely there is no need to say out of the wallets of BC ratepayers and taxpayers.
 
Coleman says that Site C will produce electricity at between $87 and $95 per MWh – “compared to other resources at $129″
 
SQ: Mr. Coleman, do you realize that you have just admitted that IPPs are charging BC Hydro, on a take or pay basis, triple or more the market price and 10 times + what Hydro can make it for?
 
SA: You have proved, through your own words, what the Common Sense Canadian has been saying all along, and you have clearly admitted that your government has been lying through its teeth from the beginning! What does this say about your government’s honesty?
 
Coleman has said he’s thoroughly reviewing Hydro’s latest request for a rate increase.
 
SQ: How the hell do you have the nerve to utter this rot when you know that huge increases must come not only from, now, Site C, but also to cover the $50+ BILLION going to IPPS?
 
SA: That statement can only be made if you’re lying or an incompetent fool! Or both.
 
Coleman says that BC Hydro will hold the “required independent environmental assessment process” which will provide opportunities for public input.
 
SQ: Will these meetings permit people to object to the project itself? To demand evidence supporting the need for the project? And who chairs these independent meetings?
 
SA: Based upon past experience the assessment process will be chaired by a firm supporter of the project and any questions raised as to the need for the project will be ruled “out of order”.
 
Assuming that BC Hydro, being the astute business persons they are, will have big, energy requiring customers in mind…
 
SQ: How much of this electricity will be going to power coal mines, shale gas extraction and the Tar Sands? And will regular residential and business ratepayers be subsidizing this industrial power the way we do now – to the tune of a 50% + discount on what we all pay?
 
SA: That’s precisely what will happen and the government and BC Hydro will, using our dollars, power production of the dirtiest corporations on the face of this planet.
 
These are some of the areas of this project Damien and I will be canvassing.
 
What we can confidently say is that Mr. Coleman has, I’m sure unwittingly, demonstrated just what a royal screwing British Columbians are taking from the IPP contracts and that the Common Sense Canadian, in exposing the deceit and cynicism of this government, has been thoroughly vindicated. Now they want us to help them compound their sins!
 
Incompetent governments are usually run by honest people who are stupid; with this government we not only have incompetence but corruption as well.
 

Share

Rafe’s Books Nominated for Samara Awards

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

I’m astonished and hugely flattered to learn that a long time
listener and reader of my stuff, Gavin Bamber, has nominated three of my
books for recognition as the top Canadian political books of the past
25 years by Samara. This about Samara and the awards:

25 Influential Books on Politics: Samara will be collecting
nominations from people across the country—and the political spectrum—on
their picks for the 25 most influential political books of the last 25
years. Samara is a charitable organization that studies citizen
engagement with Canadian democracy. Through our projects we hope to
strengthen the health of our democracy and encourage others to do the
same. Samara was created out of a belief in the importance of public
service and public leadership.

Our work focuses on three areas: political leadership; the
participation of citizens in public life; and public affairs journalism.

The books selected are, Canada Is Anyone Listening? (Key Porter), Rants Raves and Recollections (Whitecap),  and Still Ranting (Whitecap).

Mr Bamber says, “Unfortunately I had to narrow it down to only three… but those 3 work great as a trilogy. I worry that as is typical of the “national” scene that a BC writer such as Rafe Mair will be  overlooked, so I figure ‘what the bleep!’ (To quote Rafe!) Please help get Rafe the recognition that I believe he deserves!”

This project’s website is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Best_Political_Books

The page to endorse me is:

http://www.samaracanada.com/Nominate_Books

Political books from BC writers suffer greatly from being all but
ignored by Indigo/Chapters which site books about as far away from
potential buyers as is possible and discourage local publishers. I’m not
whining just laying it out.

Still Ranting is available through TheCanadian.org for $20 (plus $5 shipping) – all proceeds go to supporting our work at The Common Sense Canadian. To order a copy, click the contact link on the home page and put Still Ranting in the subject line, along with your name, mailing address and email.

Share
Nuclear Thorium

Thorium: Nuclear Power’s Last Hope…Maybe

Energy and Resources, Nuclear,
Share

Awhile back I did a piece on nuclear energy and you would have thought I was in favour of hanging petty thieves (that theory belongs to the Harper Conservatives). I said nothing in favour of nuclear but only made the point that before anything is rejected, it (the modern version) should be studied so we can understand our options. At that point we had had Chernobyl and Three Mile Island but not, of course, Fukushima.

In the Globe and Mail for May 23 last, on the op-ed page is an article by Neil Reynolds, headlined “With Thorium We Could Have Safe Nuclear Power”.

Here is the opening paragraph to set the stage:

[quote]In the beginning, nuclear scientists identified two fuel sources for the atomic age: uranium and thorium. They went with uranium. Why? It wasn’t because uranium was the better fuel. Thorium is more abundant. It is simpler. It is safer. (Although slightly radioactive, it can’t sustain a chain reaction in a nuclear reactor and, hence, can’t “melt down.”)[/quote]

Incidentally, why did we end up taking what was so obviously the wrong path? In short, because you can’t make Plutonium from Thorium – while you can from Uranium. And Plutonium was essential to building nuclear warheads. As Reynolds explains, “In the Cold War, the science goal was synonymous with the military goal:
nuclear weapons. Plutonium delivered the deadliest mushroom cloud.” Nuclear power from Uranium was a two-for-one proposition: energy and weapons.

Now, Dear Friends, did old Uncle Rafe come out in favour of nuclear power? Is it time we all set our hairpieces on fire? Does he want to have reactors like they have (had, I suppose) in Japan?

No, I want no such thing! Nuclear power as we know it has been thoroughly discredited as dangerous and expensive – and we still haven’t found a safe way to get rid of the waste.

Nor am I ready to accept a column in the Toronto Globe and Mail as definitive of the matter. Mr. Reynolds is an experienced and able columnist but he is not the scientific community. His proposition requires a hell of a lot more information from not only science but regurgitated from a thorough public debate.

If there is to be a debate it must be about Thorium, not Uranium, and free of the sort of cant by which debates are too often destroyed.

If Thorium is what Reynolds says it is, there would be an end to the destruction of our rivers and Site “C” would be abandoned (which it should be regardless).

Which brings on the other side of the debate:
What if our energy customers decide to abandon us in favour of Thorium? In the island mentality that is the hallmark of our American cousins, they will always opt for their own supply of whatever is critically needed – so long as they have that option.

Ironically, it was the US cancelling of our Uranium which had got us into big time trouble in the late 70s. So sure were we of American customers that Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. stockpiled a huge quantity which it was now stuck with. That led the way for Canada, under then Deputy Energy Minister and later Senator Jack Austin, to form a worldwide cartel of uranium producers.

My own history was as BC Minister of Environment, banning exploration for and mining of Uranium in 1979.

But, let’s get back to the theme – we are not talking about Uranium but Thorium and for all the reasons above and more it makes abundant good sense to find out what it does and judge its use based on the Precautionary Principle – meaning that proponents must demonstrate its safeness.

Now, once again, dear friends, as loudly as possible, and in unison, shout: “Rafe Mair is not in favour of nuclear power – only of examining an alternative which is alleged to be a safe, and efficient alternative!”

Share

How the Campbell/Clark Liberals Brought Real Lying into BC Politics

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I have been in politics or commenting on them (same thing) back to the days of WAC Bennett. My first published piece was a criticism of Bennett’s position on the failed (thankfully) Victoria Charter.
 
During that time I’ve seen plenty of gilding the lily, massaging of the truth, opinions presented as truth – in fact the things we all do ourselves – yet I’ve seen very little actual lying, deliberate untruths. When we would hear, say, a premier making a statement which the Opposition Leader says is untrue, that was a difference of opinion. I must admit that some opinions come perilously close to falsehoods but it was not until the Campbell government that we saw a government whose basic political strategy has been to lie. Not just puff up a story, slide over the troublesome bits – but outright lie.
 
I make that statement after considerable thought because it’s the worst behaviour possible in government.
 
I’m going to give examples.
 
With the Campbell government, it started early with fish farms and persists to this day. Campbell and his then most unsatisfactory Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish, John Van Dongen pursued their disastrous policy saying that the science was all with them. This wasn’t a mistake or a bit of government flatulence – it was untrue and the government knew that; in short it was a lie.
 
In two election campaigns Campbell promised he would never privatize BC Rail yet after he won office he did just that and, it must be noted, lied like a dog when he called it a fair process. We lost our railroad and were left with a hugely expensive lawsuit in the bargain.
 
The government, through the mouth of then Finance Minister Hansen, got serious with deliberate untruths with their Energy Policy. These statements are based on a transcript of a youtube video Hansen made during the 2009 provincial election campaign:
 
Colin Hansen: “I think, first of all, that we have to recognize that British Columbia is a net importer of electricity. We seem to think that, with all the tremendous hydro electric generating capacity we have, that we are a huge exporter. Well, we do export some, but we are a net importer…”
 
This is unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE as the records of the National Energy Board and StatsCan prove. The province of BC over the past decade has been more often than not a net exporter electricity.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…from Washington State, which largely produces their electricity from dirty coal, and also from Alberta, which uses a lot of natural gas in their electricity production. So I think it’s incumbent on British Columbia to develop its own source of needed electricity. And quite frankly, the independent power projects are the best source of that…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. Even if we did need more energy, because private river diversion projects produce most of their power during the spring run-off when BC Hydro has plenty of electricity, their energy would be of little if any impact on our energy needs.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…where we can encourage small companies…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE – unless Mr. Hansen considers General Electric, Ledcor and the DuPont family small. The companies involved are huge, largely foreign corporations.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…to build small scale hydroelectric projects that are run-of-the-river, and what that means is, instead of having a big reservoir, a big dam that backs water up, and creates a great big lake, these are run of the river, so the river continues to flow at its normal [pace] but we capture some of the energy in the form of hydroelectric power from this.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE. All these rivers are dammed and/or diverted, often using long tunnels and pipes and leave only traces of the original river in the river bed throughout the diversion stretch. The sheer scale of some of these projects and all the roads and transmission lines involved gives them an enormous ecological footprint.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…Again, from the perspective of some of the opposition, they would have you believe that every single river in British Columbia is being impacted. In reality, it is .03% of the rivers in British Columbia that could sustain any kind of hydroelectric activity, are being used for these independent power projects.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. In fact it’s double that amount but this is a numbers game. The fact is over 600 river systems (with over 800 individual diversion applications) and the ecologies they support are at risk.
 
Hansen (cont’d.):  “So, it’s being widely supported by many of the leading environmentalists, because it’s clean and sustainable. It’s also being supported by many of the First Nations communities in the province. So, I think that we have to look behind the scenes on this, and really question who is funding the opposition, and clearly they have their own agenda, and in my view, it’s not a responsible environmental agenda.”
 
Misleading at best and you should judge the matter with these facts in mind:

  1. Some of the key opponents (apart from the NDP), have been  the Wilderness Committee, Save Our Rivers Society, and now our organization, The Common Sense Canadian. Speaking for The Common Sense Canadian, it  has no institutional funding (corporations, Labour or otherwise).
  2. Who is or is not an environmentalist is a matter of choice but here are the ecologists, biologists and academics upon whom we rely: Dr. William E. Rees, Dr. John Calvert, Dr. Craig Orr, Dr. Michael Byers, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, Dr. Gordon F. Hartman, Dr. Marvin Shaffer, Dr. Elaine Golds, Dr. Michael M’Gonigle, Rex Weyler, Wendy Holm and Otto Langer.

We have, then, an Energy Policy based on a tissue of lies – not mistakes.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that BC Hydro is in good shape when our independent economist, Erik Andersen – a conservative-minded fellow with decades of experience working for the federal government and the transportation industry, I might add – says that if BC Hydro were in the private sector it would be headed for bankruptcy. The only reason it’s not is its ability to soak its customers – me and thee – with increasingly higher power bills to keep itself afloat.

In the election of 2009 Hansen and Campbell stated clearly that the budget of the past April was a statement of the true financial situation. Then, with the election safely behind them, they admitted that the budget was way out of whack but they didn’t know it until, conveniently, the election was over.

I’ve been there and I can tell you that the Finance Minister knew the province was in financial doo doo. For Hansen and Campbell to say that they didn’t have the evidence of falling tax revenues – the sales tax and stumpage are reliable barometers of the truth – is like a man standing across the road from a burning building with people jumping out windows saying he didn’t notice a thing because he was busy reading his paper.
 
The same scenario prevailed with the HST as Campbell and Hansen announced the HST after the election saying that it “wasn’t even on the radar screen” during the campaign, whereas it transpired that Hansen had received a detailed analysis from his ministry long before the election, which told him the HST would be a big mistake. Again, Hansen was apparently reading his newspaper across from the burning building.
 
There we have it – the government now led my Premier Clark won three elections by lying to the people.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be doing a great deal in the days to come on Site “C” and we will, I assure you, be exposing interesting facts on the need (or lack thereof) for this mega-project; the costs, and what it means for the environment.
 
The plain facts are that the Campbell/Clark government has lied and thus fooled us in three elections.
 
If they do it again, we will get what we deserve and future generations will inherit the consequences of our shame.

Share

Standing up to Enbridge in an Undemocratic Canada

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

Last article I spoke of civil disobedience, a legitimate tool of dissent in a democracy when a government makes political decisions without public consultation and to the exclusion of all but the powerful. We have just such a decision forthcoming with federal and provincial approval of the Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and huge oil tankers moving that sludge down our treacherous coastline to Asia and the US.
 
The governments will no doubt say that this decision has been democratically decided by democratic process, which is pure barnyard droppings.
 
In fact the public has not been consulted and won’t be until after the deal is done.
 
Since last week there have been two major events to report.
 
Stephen Harper will likely face five vacancies on the Supreme Court during this term – including two recent retirements and others on the way – which he will fill with Conservatives, thus ensuring “right thinking” dominance of that court for more than a decade to come.
 
Harper is good on political pay-offs.  Look at how he rewarded David Johnston, whose terms of reference for the hearing into the investigation into Brian Mulroney’s shenanigans ensured that he would get off lightly and no nasty reflections on the Conservative Party would surface. Mr. Johnston was rewarded by appointment as Governor-General.
 
The second event was Harper confirming that his government will approve the massive oil tanker traffic to come down our coast from the Enbridge pipeline delivering Tar Sands bitumen to Kitimat. Displaying breathtaking candour, combining arrogance and ignorance, Harper approved this deadly policy saying that tankers already go down the Atlantic coast and are widely used in the Great Lakes! That shows you how much Harper and Co. knows about BC and indicates to me how unimportant our local Tory MPs are or, perhaps, they aren’t able to understand what BC is all about. About one thing we can be certain: no environmental concern will ever even slow down any moneymaking scheme of those who care only for money. Corporations don’t have a soul because they’re not supposed to; the government has no soul because they rely on corporate money to stay elected, while the people who do possess souls are stonewalled from standing up for real values.
 
There are also the fish farms which Harper, through his Minister, Gail Shea (easily the worst Fisheries minister ever, and that covers a lot of ground) actively uses Fisheries and Oceans as an advertising agency for these environmental nightmares.
 
I hope I’ve demonstrated why we cannot rely upon democratic processes to save our environment.
 
Last Saturday’s Globe and Mail had a full page story by Josh Wingrove in their national edition. It chronicles recent oil spills, especially the Rainbow disaster – the largest spill in Alberta in more than 30 years. My advice is to get that article, download it off the Globe and Mail website for the entire story.
 
The truth is that spills cannot be avoided and when they happen are utter disasters.
 
It’s not hard to understand why this is so. It takes time for a spill to become evident and when it does, huge damage has already been done. You can stop the oil being transported but you can’t do anything about what is already in the pipe.
 
It’s important to understand where the two Enbridge pipelines will go and it must be remembered that we’re dealing with two pipelines – one to bring the bitumen to Kitimat and one to take the gas condensate to Alberta, in order to dilute the bitumen to be transferred.
 
It must be carefully noted that we’re not talking about “risk” here, but a certainty. It’s as simple as this – if one runs a “risk” continuously it becomes a reality waiting to happen and when it does happen it’s a first class calamity.
 
The Enbridge proposed pipeline runs through one of the last true wildlife areas in the world – 1000+ km and over 1000 rivers and streams.
 
The catastrophe can come from several possible sources – earth tremors, aging and rusting, terrorism, and plain negligent construction. The Rainbow disaster came because a small section of the pipe was not sufficiently buttressed against the earth settling – a simple but catastrophic event caused by one shift in one minute area of the pipeline.
 
How can these be inspected?
 
The short answer is they can’t be, as the Rainbow case makes eloquently clear. They are largely located far away from populations and hard to get at. Moreover, as in the Rainbow case, the problem is seldom discernible to routine inspection.
 
In summary, the proposed pipeline from the Tar Sands will fail, and when it does it will be a catastrophe of epochal proportions.
 
What then of the tanker traffic down our treacherous coast?
 
A wreck or serious leak is even more dangerous than a pipeline leak and will make the Exxon Valdez pale into insignificance. Moreover it will happen and, when addressing this point, remember that at least pipelines stay still.
 
What an irony – here we are trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we sacrifice our land and water on behalf of Asian customers after our fossil fuels!
 
And bear this in mind: BC gets nothing out of all out of all this – we’re and easement, a right-of-way to suffer consequent damage from pipelines we have no interest in.
 
Don’t be fooled into thinking that jobs come with this exercise. Once the pipeline is built, the only labour is custodial. Even most of the construction jobs will go to those who do this sort of work on an ongoing basis and will almost all come from out-of-province.
 
What remedies are there for us to pursue?
 
Write a letter to our MP?
 
Mine gave money to Plutonic Power (General Electric in drag), without the remotest idea as to what this independent power company was doing or even a faint notion of what the provincial government’s Energy Plan was all about. Why would he be any more caring about oil spills on land and sea?
 
There are no remedies within the system and any attempts to proceed down that path are an utter waste of time.
 
Our only hope is to protest and, if necessary, practice civil disobedience with the expectation that the rotten justice system will put us in jail.
 
That tells you what democracy, Canada-style, is all about.
  

Share