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.

Civil Disobedience in the Offing to Protect BC’s Environment

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, WATER, , ,
Share

One is not supposed to anticipate lawbreaking, much less say that one will participate. Interesting that as I write this, it is the 71st anniversary of Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister of Britain. I claim no resemblance to the great man – I only say that I learned from him that candour is the only sensible, and indeed honest, way to deal with problems.
 
I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.
 
Let me set forth the problems about which I intend to be candid:

  1. Our wild salmon are in extreme danger and much of that danger comes from salmon farms with the profits going overseas. Closed containment is rejected by the farmers as being too expensive. Think on that. What they’re clearly saying is “in order to run our business we need British Columbians to absorb the cost of going to closed containment!” They say, plainly, that the cost to BC must be your environment and your wild salmon.
  2. Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are ruining our rivers with their dams, roads and transmission lines.
  3. BC Hydro, on direct orders from the Liberal government must make sweetheart deals with these IPPs by which they must pay them more than double what Hydro (through their export arm Powerex) can sell it for – or use it themselves instead at 9-12 times what BC Hydro can make the power for themselves.
  4. IPP power is produced during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need the power and thus must accept this private power at a huge loss.
  5.  Because of the foregoing BC Hydro must pay IPPs, over the next 20-40 years over $50 Billion – rising with each contract – for power they don’t need. (When the Clark government says we need IPP power to make BC self sufficient they are lying through their teeth).
  6. Virtually none of the IPP profits stay in  BC and the jobs, after construction – mostly from outside the communities where the projects are built – are custodial only.
  7. Both the federal and BC governments support Enbridge building two 1000+ km pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, one for bringing the bitumen (i.e. Tar Sands gunk) to Kitimat, the second to take the natural gas derivative that is mixed with the bitumen so it is sufficiently liquefied to pass through the pipeline, back to Alberta. Because there is no timeline involved, a burst pipe is not a risk but a certainty.
  8. Kinder-Morgan, who owns the existing bitumen pipeline from the Tar Sands to the the Burrard Inlet near Vancouver, wants to more than double its capacity – meaning a dramatic increase in supertankers carrying bitumen right by Vancouver, the Gulf Islands, and Victoria.
  9. When (not if) a pipeline bursts there is nothing Enbridge or Kinder-Morgan can do except shut off the supply with all the gunk already in the pipeline going onto the lands and creeks it passes. One can readily see that every second after a rupture, the spill will be aggravated. Enbridge’s record in these matters is appalling – their dumping of bitumen last summer into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan being but one example.
  10. These pipelines pass through some of the last wilderness left in the world and there is no way tEnbridge can patrol over 1000 km of pipe in this wilderness and even if they did, nothing can be done about the bitumen in the pipes for days or longer if there’s a rupture.
  11. The Federal and Provincial governments have already agreed to approve huge tankers taking the bitumen down the BC coast – probably the most dangerous coast in the world and, again, it’s not a risk of loss and catastrophic consequences but a certainty we’re dealing with. Prime Minister Harper compares this coastline with the Atlantic coast or the Great Lakes!
  12. Finally, I feel compelled to mention that I learned recently the BC Liberal government is quietly designing a wolf “management” (read “slaughter”) plan that will likely sanction, among other horrors, the killing of wolves from helicopters under the pretense of protecting caribou populations. I dealt with this crap when I was Environment Minister in 1979, instituting a ban on the slaughter of wolves; clearly the forces in favour of this arcane practice never let up.

Here is the kicker: The public has virtually no say as to whether or not these projects will proceed.
 
The only public input permitted is the right to go to the environmental assessment process which comes after the decision to go ahead has been made, and then only to make suggestions about environmental rules to be followed.
 
Here’s what I said earlier: “I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.”
 
Now let me pose this question: Is there any way these projects can be stopped without people picketing and going to jail?
 
And whose fault will that be – The Cassandra who predicts what will happen or the governments which not only permit but actively support the environmental crimes, and bankruptcy of BC Hydro, brought on knowingly and heedlessly by these governments?

Share

How the Federal Election Reshapes BC’s Political Landscape

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

It’s been a few days now since our momentous federal election and I’m trying to make some sense of it from the environmentalist standpoint.
 
The good news is, of course, the election of Elizabeth May – even though as one lone voice in parliament she can do little in any formal sense.
 
She can be effective at getting her message out both in question period and “debate” if the media want her to get coverage. They will certainly cover her activities so long as she keeps matters interesting. It’s the old “dog bites man/man bites dog” rule of journalism. As long as Ms. May can give the media interesting stories, her work will be reported.
 
I hope that the Green Party can increase its size and influence but it would take a braver man than I to ever see them for Official Opposition, much less government. We at the Common Sense Canadian will, it goes without saying, offer time and space to Ms. May and any other political parties or candidates who pledge to preserve our environment.
 
It’s an interesting situation re BC’s political scenario. BC doesn’t usually mirror federal political experiences. In fact it’s often the reverse. I was involved in a provincial election where there was a national election as well. I was astonished to see lawn signs supporting me as a Socred provincially and the NDP nationally. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are famous for this sort of vote splitting.
 
Interestingly, there was huge joy both at Tory and NDP post-mortems. Each saw their results as voter support of their party – and it was. What will become of the Liberals is for another day.
 
I suspect that there was great joy in both the BC Liberal and NDP camps. The Liberals will declare that what happens nationally to the Liberals doesn’t affect them, though I must churlishly remind Premier Clark that this wasn’t her view in the campaign. The premier will no doubt see this as a great victory for capitalism – Fraser Institute variety – and be tempted to have an early election to take benefit of the BC voter’s lurch to the right.
 
Except that’s not what happened. The Tories popular vote was up about 2% and the NDP up about 6%. Indeed, on those results the NDP is the one that should be antsy for an election, especially if either/both the Tories and BC First parties gain some traction.
 
The results are, sad to say, good news for those who want more fish farms, more private power, more pipelines and more oil tanker traffic. At least on the surface, for we’ll never really know how British Columbians feel about these issues until they are issues in a provincial election.
 
Unless Premier Clark is that rare politician that wants citizens to be fully informed before going to the polls, she will call a snap election in hopes that British Columbians will not be fully informed on these issues.
 
We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the environmental catastrophes I mention are not offset by great financial gains – quite the opposite.
 
Fish Farm profits go mainly to Norwegian shareholders, while the private power producers send their ill-gotten gains to large out-of-province and out-of-country shareholders. The big loss is, of course, BC Hydro, which – according the Erik Andersen, an economist specializing in government finances – would, if in the private sector and unable to raise rates with impunity, be bankrupt or in bankruptcy protection.
 
In short, the environmental losses – much including our wild salmon – far from bringing revenue into the province cost us big time.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian are concerned about a Tory majority and the possibility of it meaning Premier Clark will win a new majority. If British Columbia gives her that majority, they will be accepting the environmental outrages I mentioned above.
 
I don’t believe that British Columbians will buy those environmental catastrophes in a fair fight and we see it as our job to make sure it is fair.
 
We at the Common Sense Canadian pledge that we will have those issues on the table when the next election comes.
 
Thereafter, it’s BC’s choice.
 

Share

Not a Good Night for BC’s Environment

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

It was not, over all, a great night for environmentalists in BC with the very notable exception of the election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party MP in our history. She will find that she has taken on the responsibility of being one of BC’s main spokespeople on environmental matters and The Common Sense Canadian looks forward to working with May and, of course, those other MPs who feel as we do about the environment and related issues. I make no apologies for not calling the election correctly – if I did that I would spend half my lifetime apologizing!
      
As the old saying has it, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So it is with us who have taken environmental issues on as a lifetime issue. It’s not that we don’t see, understand and have passion for other issues – rather that we see the environment as being urgent. If we get it wrong over the next few years – and the BC government and the Harper government have got it wrong – then the damage is forever. You simply cannot restore wild salmon runs or erase the damage of a catastrophic oil spill. On the economic side of the environment issue, if you lose your public power to private interests as we seem determined to do, it’s gone forever.
 
It must be stressed that we are not opposed to change where it is demonstrated to be in the public interest. We’re not Luddites out to destroy the “cotton ‘gin’” although any study of that time makes one very understanding of those who saw their livelihoods vanish to an unmanned factory that used to employ them. But – and this must be stressed – the environmental destroyers with their fish farms and private river monstrosities are not destroying jobs that exist – they are pleading the employment they bring as justification for their schemes. After short term construction jobs are over, the only jobs are as caretakers.
 
It’s not as if these huge companies bring us something we can’t do for ourselves – quite the opposite. Our wild salmon have sustained communities for generations and, in the case of First Nations, for eons. These fish farm companies use our resources to make fortunes for foreign shareholders.
Consider this: Fish farmers tell us that they can’t go to self contained methods because it’s too expensive.
 
Why is it too expensive?
 
Because they don’t have to pay for their farm now because we the people and the environment bear all the expense.
 
This is the same with private power companies – not only do they not make a sou for our province, not only do they not make power we can make ourselves for much cheaper, not only do they destroy our rivers, they do it at our expense. We pay their overhead!
 
This it is with bringing Tar Sands in pipelines across our province then down our coastline in tankers – we pay their overhead by taking all the risk!
 
The point I’m forcing is that it isn’t just a “green” issue but an economic one. We British Columbians pay all the overhead of fish farms, private power projects, pipelines and tanker traffic! And there’s nothing in it for us!

But don’t let me deceive you. If we were making bundles out of these deals I would oppose them with every effort I could summon. I would do so because it’s plain wrong. These fish, rivers, ecologies are like trust funds. They don’t belong to us.
 
Speaking for Damien and myself, The Common Sense Canadian, far from being set back by a Tory government, are challenged – and we love challenges. We see a number of MPs in a position to fight and well motivated for the battle ahead.

People vote in elections for many things. It is our challenge to see that when we have the next provincial election, saving our fish, our rivers, our public power, our wilderness and our coastline are front and centre issues.
 
 
 
 

Share

Rafe on the Eve of our Federal Election

Canada, Politics, Western Canada
Share

I write this on Saturday with less than two days to go before we vote. As might be expected from a paper whose editorial chief is a fellow of the Fraser Institute, the ill named Vancouver Sun, want a Tory majority. So does the Globe and Mail and I can hardly wait to see the Province’s opinion. I will not be taking their advice.
 
Elections ought to be about issues (a bit of profundity for you!) and not about Political Parties. One blog I read urges us not to vote “strategically” but stay loyal to our party so as to prevent an extension of the calamities of a minority government.
 
Let’s deal with that for a bit. What’s so bad about minority governments? Most western countries have them and they seem to be doing OK.
 
The main argument is that “nothing gets done” and that the parliament is full of catcalling and rude jibes.
 
Let me pose this proposition: Thank God Harper has been confined to leader of a minority government! Can you imagine what the bastards would have done had they be able to do as they pleased?
 
The noisy lack of discipline in the Commons shouldn’t bother us because it’s better to do it there with words rather than with sticks and stones on the street. For the most part this sort of behaviour speaks to the frustration of MPs who, because of our “first past the post” system, have virtually nothing to do with how the country is run.
 
Imagine yourself an MP in opposition and the majority brings in a budget that you see as evil. Of course your side has the Rules laying out privileges of “debate”, meaning a few in your party will be allowed to bitch loud and clear in a fight against the preordained government victory. The same applies to legislation – your side has a limited power to rail against it and when that time’s up, the government votes the bill into law.
 
Suppose that you’re an MP and the same bad buggers are in office but as a minority. The Finance Minister can no longer say, if just under his breath, “like it or lump it”. You and all other MPs suddenly have the whip hand. No longer can a minister bring in legislation on the “like it or lump it” basis.

Now there are practical limitations on the power of the minority to stop or at least slow down the government – no party wants a sudden untimely election on fiscal grounds if nothing else. But this applies to the government too.

What does happen is consultation amongst the parties. Surely that’s a very good thing, not evil as the tightly owned, government loving media would have us believe.
 
Minority governments can be coalitions yet still, the coalition will readily split if the larger party tries to ram it up the nearest bodily orifice.
 
Let’s talk about issues. For as long as I can remember (a long time I must admit) the issues have been healthcare, unemployment, social services, law and order and such matters. Every election brings those to office who sound like they are the ones to deal with these matters; they never do it and the next election is fought on the same grounds with the same speeches and the same results.
 
To my admittedly biased eye there are two issues before us that can and should be dealt with – Energy and its twin, the Environment. What makes these issues so critical is that unlike the other issues above, something can be done and the failure to do anything will have immediate and devastating impacts – and the damage is forever.
 
We in BC are expected to lie down like lambs and let the big international wolves “mine” the bitumen in the Tar Sands and send it across this province and put it in huge tankers who will take it through the most treacherous waters in the world. These actions are said to be almost “risk free”.
 
In fact a never-ending risk is not a risk any more but a certainty waiting to happen. Worse than that, the bitumen is hugely destructive and all but impossible to control as we saw last year with Enbridge’s spill into the Kalamazoo River and with the Exxon Valdez. Enbridge has an appalling record and wants approval to transport their bitumen across over 1000 km of our land, traversing more than 1000 rivers and streams then down our hugely dangerous coast in supertankers.
 
The Conservatives, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, have made it clear that they don’t understand the nature of our coast, comparing it to the East Coast and the Great Lakes. Under a Tory government, the pipeline and shipping will take place without hindrance – indeed likely with government assistance.
 
Harper has already shown his contempt for our native salmon by making a substantial grant of taxpayer money to Plutonic Power, which is General Electric in drag and having a half wit as a Fisheries Minister who attends Farm Fishery conference encouraging them to do even more damage to our wild salmon.
 
Mr. Ignatieff is opposed to the pipeline and tanker traffic as is Mr. Layton (as is the Green Party, of course).
 
You and I are told by the newspapers that we should vote for Mr. Harper, but why?
 
Fiscal expertise?
 
Harper didn’t create our banking system which kept the country from the fate of so many others – he inherited it. At the same time the Harper Government racked up the largest deficit in history.
 
Foreign Affairs where he cost Canada a seat on the UN Security Council?
 
Health and other social issues? Surely not even the Vancouver and their bosom buddy, the right wing think tank, the Fraser Institute which has screamed for even greater cuts in social programs. They haven’t the slightest concern about saving our environment from huge corporate predators who don’t give a fiddler’s fart for our salmon, our rivers or our home-owned BC Hydro.
 
I won’t tell you who I’ll vote for but it sure as hell won’t be the Conservatives.

Share

A Vote for Harper is a Vote for Oil Tankers in BC

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

We must rise as one and vote against all Tory candidates on May 2 and do so by voting for the candidate most likely to beat them and here’s the reason:
 
Ponder the words spoken by Prime Minister Harper on a recent visit to North Vancouver – quoted in the Vancouver Sun:

“I think we have been very clear on this,” said Harper.

“We will only allow tanker traffic if we can be sure that tanker traffic is safe. But will we ever say that we cannot have the same kind of commerce on the West Coast as on the East Coast? Of course we’re never going to rule out those opportunities for our country.”

Harper said he wants to “see the day” when Canada is able to continue to increase trade with Asia.

“So we’re not going to create artificial bans on the West Coast that don’t exist in other parts of the country.”

Those are the words which must surely cause British Columbians to utterly reject Harper and his Tories at the polls.
 
The objection to the Enbridge double pipeline proposal from the Tar Sands to Kitimat thence by huge tanker down our coast, and expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline from the Tar Sands to Burnaby, are not based upon some 1960s flower children chants (it turns out we should have listened to them) or some anti-business bias. The deep concerns come from fact, not emotion (though I confess that I have strong emotions about my province) about a policy which is based upon the false premise that these propositions have little risk.
 
Forgive me for using my oft-repeated simile but the dangers cannot be pushed aside lightly by one-liners.
 
Suppose you have a revolver with 100 chambers, only one of which has a bullet and suppose you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger just once. The odds are simple, 99-1 against. What, however, if you decide to repeat this insanity without any limits as to how many or how long?
 
The risk is then a certainty waiting to happen.
 
As you are calculating the odds of the gun going off you would be concerned about the consequences; namely, unless you were firing marshmallow not bullets you would be dead.
 
Not only are these pipelines and tankers certain to have accidents, the consequences are not marshmallow but utter catastrophe.
 
The pipelines, two them to Kitimat – one with Tar Sands gunk, the other to take back the natural gas compound to Alberta used to dilute the bitumen for pumping – transit some of the last true wilderness on the planet, including the Great Bear Rainforest.
 
What happens if there is a leak during this 1000-plus km journey?
 
The spill piles up until help comes, and given our geography, God only knows how long that would take!
 
Enbridge’s track record is appalling. With its Kalamazoo River spill last year it was roundly criticized for tardiness and that was in a populated area.
 
When Enbridge has its BC spill it will be in wilderness devoid of easy access. When the spill is reported the company must seal off both sides of the rupture and during that interval oil continues to flow through the breach. We’re talking 1100km transversing about 1000 rivers and streams in the wildest terrain in the world. No matter how quickly Enbridge responds, the damage will be an enormous, permanent tragedy. Moreover, while at the best of times any rupture will be tragic, what if the rupture is by terrorists who know how to make it as catastrophic as possible?
 
The proposed tanker traffic out of Kitimat is just as serious a concern as a land tragedy, perhaps even more so. The Exxon Valdez will pale by comparison. This is the most dangerous of the world’s seacoasts.

I hesitate to say that as we voters calculate the consequences of Harper’s offhand dismissal of our case (75-80% of British Columbians have consistently polled in favour of a tanker ban), we should remember that there isn’t anything in it for BC. I hesitate because even if the rewards were immense we should be opposed because no monetary reward could compensate our loss. In fact, BC is simply an easement and gets nothing of consequence. 

Why are our two senior governments so eager to have our province, on land and sea, hostage to China’s need for Tar Sands gunk? Isn’t the idea to get away from the use of fossil fuels? Aren’t we, in a sense, enabling the drunk to drink?

(It’s interesting to note the similarity of this policy to the government’s utter lack of concern that the Campbell/Clark private power plan sends all the benefits out of province. What is it about us in BC that the governments we help elect want to destroy our environment while making foreigners rich and happy?)

Back to proposed and existing pipelines and tanker traffic.
 

Stephen Harper’s policies guarantee that BC will sustain incalculable damage.
 
That being the case, British Columbians must ensure that Harper doesn’t get electoral encouragement, much less a majority from us.
 
Retaining our beautiful province is in our hands when we enter that polling booth May 2nd.

Share

The Youth Vote – Election Wildcard

Canada, Politics, Western Canada
Share

Two phenomena could change the federal political landscape in BC – one would come from strategic voting where voters choose not to elect someone rather than supporting their favourite party. If this tactic is widespread it could deny Mr. Harper a majority, which in my view is an excellent thing to do.

There could be another phenomenon resulting in a tectonic shift of BC politics – the young may actually get out and vote.

How long and how often have we, ahem, older voters bemoaned the absence of more youthful voters?

I have often observed that youth will travel halfway across the continent to protest but won’t cross the street to vote.

It’s certainly true that my generation has not distinguished itself but if we’re to blame for doing things wrong surely the young have the responsibility to make things right. Most generations have failed to make the world peaceful and prosperous but that doesn’t absolve the next generation of its obligation, if only in self interest, to make things better.

Two ends of the policy spectrum should be of much interest young voters they flock to the polls; Education is one of them. University fees are just one of the areas of concern. Young people will soon have children of their own and will have an even tougher time than we did in managing daycare, controlling rising costs at all levels and ensuring that the education their children is to the standards they would wish. It’s an irony of the times that those who need the most help are the ones in their 20s and 30s who make the least. They face, to say the least, an uncertain financial outlook and, perhaps the worse difficulty of all – what are the jobs going to be and how can they best prepare themselves?

The Liberals and Tories have done little to make youth feel wanted while the much friendlier NDP seems, on the federal level at least, unable to win. Young people tend to be visionaries more than practical and this is the very reason they are so badly needed. Since recorded history youth have tended to be idealists, which makes it difficult to join parties where policy is driven by old (mostly) men who see life in more static terms, worried more by the problems of their own remaining days. It’s this old/young split that creates a sense of futility in the young, keeping them away from the polls where they could change things.

The years to come will be interesting and fraught with huge changes in the way we behave as a people and as a country, in terms of changing universal behaviour, and what the young can do as they pass through life and rise to its many challenges.

Young people must also wrestle with the truth – our method of governance is not what in fact happens. They become adults believing that Canada is a parliamentary democracy where MPs have some power, whereas power is almost entirely exercised in the Prime Minister’s office. As they slowly become aware that they have been misinformed they become cynical and disinterested in getting involved in a game where the “fix” is in right from the start.

However much they might wish it were not so, it is so and there is only one solution – youth must force the issue by getting involved.

There is a cause where the younger citizens can make a difference both on the ground and in the voting booth – the environment, in the broadest sense of that word. I speak of grossly intrusive highways, fish farms destroying our wild salmon, private power which BC Hydro must buy even though they have no use for it and which results in horrific and permanent damage to our rivers, bankrupting itself in the bargain.

Our young generations can start public protesting as comrades with a lot of older citizens and voting for a party that pledges to change things.

The wheel may be crooked but, alas, it’s the only game in town, meaning we all must work towards more involvement of people of every age group; but while we may all fight as hard as we can, the war cannot be won without the young.

Video of recent Youth “Vote Mob” at UBC:

Share

Minority Govt. & Strategic Voting to Save BC

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

Two related matters today.

First, Prime Minister Harper is making a big fuss about needing a majority government. So are the Central Canadian media. I ask, what’s the matter with a minority government?

Think what the Harper government did without a majority and ask yourself what’s so good about a majority 5 year dictatorship? Why don’t the media examine what is right about a minority government.

In fact there is one extremely good thing – the government is forced to consult with other leaders both on the budget and general legislation. On the budget, the Minister of Finance can’t walk into the Chamber and say “like it or lump it – after the usual fandango and ritual speeches we, the government, are going to cram it up your…surely I need go no further.” How is that bad?

It’s the same thing with legislation and policy – there must be consultation.

It’s said that a minority government must always kiss the backside of the opposition – that is palpable nonsense. In reality minority parties while able to vote down the government rarely do. They usually are out of serious money for campaigning and don’t want an election where the government can, as here, bleat that they couldn’t get their legislation through – legislation that would end the nation’s woes and bring happiness to all.

The media claims that all the House of Commons does is bicker. But surely to God that’s what they’re supposed to do. It’s a passionate place because there blood is spilled figuratively rather than literally.

In my opinion a minority government, while far from perfect, is the best of possible results – especially for British Columbia, which needs political clout.

Let’s look at what BC needs.

Of course we have the needs of the rest of the country – health, jobs, better social policy and so on – but every party wants this, with none of them likely any better than the other.

We have a province that has growing concerns about the environment and giveaways that are features of both Victoria and Ottawa.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are in bed with the fish farmers as memoranda leaked to the Cohen Commission clearly show. The Tories clearly support foreign corporations slaughtering our salmon in the interests of shareholders in Norway.

The Harper government supports the debasing of our environment so that large companies can make power we don’t need, that BC Hydro cannot use but is committed by contract to take and lose money on – all to the profit once more of foreign shareholders. In fact the federal government has helped fund Plutonic Power, which is General Electric in drag.

The Harper government supports the Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and also supports huge oil tankers taking this sludge down our coast – arguably the most treacherous coastline in the world.

What can we do about this? What can we do to ensure that if Harper forms another government we in BC will be able to rely upon a strongly built opposition to see that parliament hears our concerns?

The issue before us is a stark one: do we support the party of our usual choice and the toady they have as their candidate or do we vote strategically so as to ensure our province has clout in Ottawa?

Strategic voting means supporting the best opposition candidate and vote for him/her even though in better times you wouldn’t.

We British Columbians have three areas of concern which, if badly dealt with, will kill off our wild fisheries, bankrupt our public Hydro corporation and ensure that oil spills on land and sea will damage our province beyond repair.

The Conservative government would allow, indeed encourage these catastrophes. These environmental outrages are not the bleeding heart sort supported by flower children in days of yore – in fact they are at the very core of our way of life.

If we do not commit ourselves to fighting for the province, who will? I personally look at my nine grandchildren and my great granddaughter and conclude that this destruction can’t happen on my watch – at least not without me giving everything I have to the fight.

Let’s all join as British Columbians to send a message to Ottawa that will at least be heard in the House of Commons.

If we do that, we’re in with a chance.

If we don’t, thank God we won’t be still alive when future generations of British Columbians will look back at us with the scorn we so justly earned  

Share
Enbridge's catastrophic spill in the Kalamazoo watershed in Michigan last year

Harper’s Outrageous Support for Oil Tankers

Uncategorized
Share

How in hell can any British Columbian who cares for our wonderful – in the literal sense of that word – and unique province support the Conservative bunch after Prime Minister Harper declared his support for oil tanker traffic on our coast?

The position I take on my own and as spokesman for The Common Sense Canadian is not some sort of outdated 1960’s flower-child fuzziness, but is based upon the certainty that the proposed piping of oil from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and thence down the coast in huge tankers will have spills and that any spill will be disastrous.

First off there are two pipelines, one to bring the black ooze from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and another back containing the natural gas condensate needed to dilute and transport that black ooze (bitumen) that is extremely toxic.

A spill in our coastal waters would make The Exxon Valdez look almost helpful by comparison.

The company doing the pipelines, Enbridge, has a horrible record, including the spilling of 4 million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo watershed in Michigan last year.

The pipelines will go through the most sensitive wild country left on the planet. It is 1050 km, so that any ruptures would be unattended for days – it took days, for God’s sake, for Enbridge to attend to the Kalamazoo, which is in Michigan not the Great Bear Rainforest!

The danger here is not some left-wing teary fuzz but a matter of arithmetic.

Suppose you had a revolver with 100 chambers with only one containing a bullet. You can easily figure out the “risk” of putting the gun to your head and pulling the trigger once. You can figure out the risk if you do it 100 times…or for a 1000.

If, however, you will do this forever it is no longer a risk but a mathematical certainty waiting to happen. And when that reality happens, you have destroyed yourself.

Now suppose you put marshmallow in the chamber not a bullet – in that case no one cares because there isn’t a serious consequence.

The reality is that both with the pipelines and the tanker traffic you have a certainty waiting to happen and it isn’t marshmallow spilling all over our precious wild country and our coastline!

If you intend to support the Tories, know that they have absolutely condemned your province to hugely destructive spills both on your precious wilderness and your coastline – perhaps the world’s most beautiful and certainly one of its most dangerous. Every time you hear the company or the government saying “risk”, substitute “certainty”.

Prime Minister Harper has shown that he either doesn’t understand the consequences of the pipelines and tankers or knows them and doesn’t care.

Are we British Columbians going to put the fate of our great and untouchable wilds and coastline in the hands of Stephen Harper and his ilk?

I am scarcely a leftie. I served as a Socred in this province’s cabinet. I’m now simply an old man who loves his province and wants to leave it to his children, grandchildren and great grandchild as he found it and finds himself fighting greedy corporations who couldn’t care less if they destroy my province … with two governments determined to help them.

Please ponder on these words and vow that this destruction won’t happen on your watch if you can help it.

Share

Rafe on NDP Leadership Win for Adrian Dix

Canada, Politics, Western Canada,
Share

What are we to make of the NDP selection of Adrian Dix as their leader?

For one thing, leaders are not selected by the media or pundits. At least not with the provincial Liberals or NDP.

My first reaction to Adrian Dix’s choice was pretty glum. For the past 10 years the NDP have been moving towards the centre into a position where it could start getting traditional Liberal votes. Mr. Dix, on form, seems to be taking the NDP back to the days of Dave Barrett. Glee in the Liberal camp was unrestrained based upon the fact that the NDP could now be seen as a fairly bright coloured red – the “socialists” would be there to kick around. I believe, on reflection, that may be an exaggeration.

From the point of view of the Common Sense Canadian all three leadership candidates were sound on the environment and private power. But if they can’t get elected what does that matter?

But who says that they can’t win?

Premier Clark must still make decisions on the BC Rail Scandal, the environment and energy. These will be issues impossible to avoid. If nothing else, BC Rail will raise itself as soon as one Liberal accuses Dix of scandalous behaviour in doctoring a memo while trying to pull a hot chestnut out of the fire for the earlier Premier Clark. In fact Dix might be wise to raise the issue himself saying I made a dumb mistake but I’ve made a full confession – now it’s up to you Premier Clark II to do the same by opening up the IPP contracts and coming clean on BC Hydro.

The Liberals will paint Dix as being bad for business – but does that matter if he has good policies for small business? Do voters like being screwed by Big Business? In my day, admittedly a century ago, one could not go wrong by bashing Big Business and Big Labour. Now, of course, the NDP must avoid angering Labour but if Mr. Dix understands that Big Labour doesn’t lend itself to great support on the ground for the NDP and he can play to that while skating the fine line between that and Labour leadership, he might be able to do something that the NDP have always had trouble with: getting the blue collar worker.

We at the Common Sense Canadian retain our stated policy: we will support candidates who will stop the destruction of BC Hydro by Independent Power Producers and the destruction of our environment.

What about third parties, namely the BC Firsters and the Tories?

Given time, the BC First Party could do some serious damage. But they aren’t going to get time – look for an election in June, September at the latest, Chris Delaney has spent too much time hand in hand with Bill Vander Zalm and John Cummins inherits right wing nuts. Both these two parties could hurt the Liberals if they had their ducks in a row – but they haven’t. Too late to the game and no money for tickets anyway.

Share

Federal & Provincial Elections: Crucial Choices for BC’s Future

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

The Common Sense Canadian is not a supporter of any political party but deals in issues and essentially we concentrate on the linked issues of the environment and energy matters.

The rationale for the Common Sense Canadian’s policy is this: every political party has the “cure” for all our social needs and each of them declares that it and only it has the ability to make the right moves to bring the actual result for what is demanded. But we have reached a crossroads – a true moment of truth.

There is surely one lesson we have learned: no matter how bad the opposition says the government is, the fiscal damage is reparable. Moreover, we ought also to have learned that each incoming government says that the situation was worse than they thought yet somehow they don’t turn out to be much of an improvement.

There is a huge difference in the messages. The Provincial Liberals, following the Socred line, tell us that the NDP left the treasury empty and ruined the economy. They make no allowances for what was known as the “Asian Flu” that so damaged BC’s export business. The fact that the NDP balanced their last year’s budget and that Premier Campbell thus saw fit to give better off people an instant billion dollar-plus tax break seems lost in the rhetoric that is politics.

I think that the case can be made that the Campbell government missed the clear signs of a recession which were there to be seen and simply didn’t tell the truth about that, and, of course, the HST.

The 1991-2001 NDP left a lot to be desired, especially in the leadership department – with four premiers in that period – and were so incapable of keeping the ship steady they were forced to bring outsiders into cabinet.

It’s not my purpose to defend or vilify either party but simply to make the point that no government has a monopoly on stupidity and no government has really wrestled the problems of health care, education, welfare and unemployment to the ground and none are likely to.

In the many years I’ve been involved in political life this is the first time I’ve seen a situation which, if not changed, will permanently leave longstanding wounds – wounds which will get worse and be incurable to boot. One of these is of a visual nature which goes to the very root of what British Columbia really is; that goes to the very root of how we keep being prosperous or at least give stability to our province in economic terms. These issues are intertwined.

The first is the environment. Virtually all mankind has played havoc with the environment but that’s surely no excuse for us to falter. We don’t have to destroy our forests to make a living. We have no need to jeopardize, indeed kill off our wild salmon so that people other than British Columbians can provide dividends for their shareholders.

We have no need to sacrifice our rivers so, once again, outsiders can profit from the electricity produced.

The second is BC Hydro, the main gem in the provincial crown. WAC Bennett saw three areas where the people, through those they elect, could use crown corporations for good policy decisions.

Bennett knew that no private ferry system would keep unprofitable routes yet he also knew that all British Columbians must have decent, affordable transportation options, so he bought Black Ball Ferries and created BC Ferries – which Gordon Campbell privatized. It left us the worst of all results – BC no longer directs its affairs but must still subsidize it.

Bennett knew that BC, large and bountiful as it is, needed a rail system that would lose money on some runs in order to open the province up and thus should be owned by the people and again a vehicle for public policy. Campbell gave this away to the private sector which won’t tolerate losing lines.

Bennett also knew that for British Columbians to compete and prosper it must have certainty of power both at home and in industry, so he bought out BC Electric Railway and created BC Hydro. This company was a huge success yet Campbell has developed a private power scheme leaving BC Hydro in a position that, if it couldn’t go on raising rates to subsidize its mandated giveaway program, would be bankrupt. It will be sold by way of bankruptcy, a bankruptcy which is clear on the horizon.

We must surely re-evaluate our political priorities. If the sale or disposition of our public assets would bring us prosperity thus making us better able to meet social obligations that would be one thing. But the fact is that each of these privatizing schemes hurts our economy badly.

For the first time in our history we have embarked on a program to destroy our environment and our ability to make our own rules about transport and power – and we have done this for the immense enrichment of others.

For the first time we have policies in place that will deliberately destroy the environment for private energy we can’t use, the profits from which go to large out of province corporations.

I believe that the last chance we’ll have to save the situation is in the forthcoming federal election and the provincial election most likely to occur this Fall, if not sooner.

This means, in my view, we must make a stark decision: are we, in exchange for the usual promises about health care, education, and welfare, going to put back into government those who are destroying our environment and giving away our power?

To this must be added that both the Federal Conservatives and the provincial Liberals have lied through their teeth in doing their destructive deeds.

The federal Conservatives are as much to blame as the Campbell/Clark bunch. One need only look at what’s coming out of the Cohen Commission to see how the destruction of our salmon by fish farms is not an accident but a very careful and deliberate policy. Moreover the feds have actually been financing the Independent Power Producers with our tax money! Can you beat this? Your tax dollars are going to help General Electric destroy our rivers and our power system!

In one line I want to dispose of the notion that we need majority governments: can you imagine what the Harper government would have done if they had a majority?

At The Common Sense Canadian we will support candidates who will end the giveaways and recover that which can be recovered, knowing that painful though the decision may be to many of us, our environment and energy will continue to be stolen from us, with one of the clear consequences that we have even less money to look after our hospitals, schools, universities and those who need help.  

Share